[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-users
Subject:    Re: Troubles using port_binary_distributable.tcl
From:       Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign () macports ! org>
Date:       2014-05-21 2:45:39
Message-ID: FBEB683E-881A-4E61-9E16-67F60A07C024 () macports ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On May 20, 2014, at 18:16, Davide Liessi wrote:

> 2014-05-21 1:01 GMT+02:00 Ryan Schmidt:
>> port_binary_distributable.tcl was fixed to be compatible with both MacPo=
rts 2.2.x and 2.3.x so make sure you have the latest version of the script =
from the repository.
> =

> Indeed /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/base/po=
rtmgr/jobs/port_binary_distributable.tcl
> was outdated, while
> /opt/macports-src/base/portmgr/jobs/port_binary_distributable.tcl
> worked as expected (/opt/macports-src/ is the SVN repository of
> MacPorts base source).
> =

> I thought that installing MacPorts from source and/or running 'sudo
> port sync' would also update those scripts inside /opt/local.
> Why does this not happen?

The directory /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/ba=
se contains whatever base version was downloaded by "sudo port selfupdate".=
 This only includes released stable versions. If you install a newer non-st=
able version, either from svn or an alpha, beta or release candidate packag=
e, then selfupdate will do nothing, which explains why the contents of that=
 directory, in this case including the port_binary_distributable.tcl script=
, are MacPorts 2.2.1 versions, even though you are running a later version =
of MacPorts.

This problem will resolve itself once MacPorts 2.3.0 is released, which sho=
uld be soon, unless problems are found.

I don't think we ever expected users to manually run anything in that direc=
tory; the directory exists only for MacPorts to use during selfupdates. If =
you want to run port_binary_distributable.tcl, get the version correspondin=
g to your version of MacPorts from the repository.


On May 20, 2014, at 19:56, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:

> Is this something we should have the scripts check before running? If the=
 MacPorts version is newer than they=92re expecting, demand the user downlo=
ad a fresh copy.

This seems like overkill to me. Most MacPorts releases haven't made the typ=
es of internal changes that were made in 2.3.0 that cause changes in script=
s to be necessary.


> Or, perhaps, make the scripts a package that can be installed to libexec?


We could make a port for port_binary_distributable.tcl. Or are you thinking=
 it should be installed as part of the MacPorts base installation? I guess =
the reason why it's not now is that we like being able to change the list o=
f approved licenses without having to release a new version of MacPorts.

What other scripts besides port_binary_distributable.tcl are you thinking o=
f?

_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]