Hi all,
I observe a behaviour, which I believe is due to the fact that I uninstalled an
selected port (see below). This seems to leave the selection mechanism in an
undesired state and should be handled. Now I wonder which is the expected
behaviour, so that I can eventually file a ticket
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.comwrote:
sudo port -f select --set postgresql postgresql93
In my opinion, such protection is a Good Thing (TM). There's a way to
work around it if you know the reason behind the file collision, but I
certainly wouldn't want a
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:53 +0100, Peter Danecek wrote:
On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:44, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:33 +0100, Peter Danecek wrote:
Hi all,
I observe a behaviour, which I believe is due to the fact that I
uninstalled an selected port
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Peter Danecek peter.dane...@bo.ingv.itwrote:
On 28 Feb 2014, at 15:17, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com wrote:
An alternative when you know that you are uninstalling a port is to
select none. So something like
sudo port select --set postgresql none
[Sorry, I realise I send my replies off-list]
On 28 Feb 2014, at 15:38, Clemens Lang c...@macports.org wrote:
Hi,
I believe it is consistent. As I understand it, the simlinks created by
port select are not *owned* by the selected port. Since the port
itself does not maintain these
[Sorry, I realise I send my replies off-list]
On 28 Feb 2014, at 15:17, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com wrote:
An alternative when you know that you are uninstalling a port is to
select none. So something like
sudo port select --set postgresql none
to get rid of the simlinks, then
[Sorry, I realise I send my replies off-list]
On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:44, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:33 +0100, Peter Danecek wrote:
Hi all,
I observe a behaviour, which I believe is due to the fact that I
uninstalled an selected port (see below).
