From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 23:12:05 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59AFD771 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (smtp.digiware.nl [31.223.170.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14943AF4 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rack1.digiware.nl (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEE616A402; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:11:56 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.nl Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by rack1.digiware.nl (rack1.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PvK8r-Rt5Nvm; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:11:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.10.9] (vaio [192.168.10.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96C3C16A407; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:11:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <548F6AA1.5000407@digiware.nl> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:11:29 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brandon Allbery Subject: Re: I do not quite understand why a BIND upgrade needs to touch soo much. References: <548F4F62.4020308@digiware.nl> <548F5C6F.7040309@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:12:05 -0000 On 15-12-2014 23:26, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Willem Jan Withagen > Hm; I'd expect it to notice the new gettext and build that as well, since > the new bind might depend on changes in it (it has no way of knowing that > in this case it's safe). OTOH this explains some of the screw cases that > portuprade used to get me into, which are why I use portmaster these > days.... augh, that is something to check. I've been using portinstall/upgrade for a serious time. Did have some awkward moments, but always consider them pilot-error... > Still leaves the point that 'pkg upgrade bind99' removes packages >> without reinstalling those. The only alternatives are: >> - pkg upgrade, and everything is upgraded >> - capture the list of deletion, and manually re-add them after >> the upgrade >> > > This comes of prebuilt packages. In theory, a poudriere setup could be > managed so that you updated only the bind99 Makefile. If you're relying on > the standard packages, or updating a poudriere ports tree without checking > /usr/ports/UPDATING first, you have no way to limit the update and get a > bind99 package built against the old gettext; you have little choice but to > upgrade everything. This calls for something in /etc/crontab like: ( diff -N /usr/src/UPDATING ~/tmp/UPDATING || cp /usr/src/UPDATING ~/tmp/UPDATING ) What I us to get alerted when /usr/src/UPDATING gets changed. But then still I'm afraid that just getting a poudriere package set for just only bind99 is perhaps a bit too much. > nix gives you the option of the "In theory..." above about poudriere. The > *default* behavior won't differ.) > --WjW