Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:42:43 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Jason Hunt <leth@primus.ca>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        "Kirk R. Wythers" <kwythers@umn.edu>
Subject:   Re: housecleaning and portupgrade question
Message-ID:  <20021024231510.O22947-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1035474504.15382.20.camel@lorax.forestry.umn.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 Oct 2002, Kirk R. Wythers wrote:

> It looks to me like there is no reason for both aalib-1.4.r5 and
> aalib-1.4.r5_1. Seems that portupgrade does not cause this problem and
> is the prefered upgrade method
>
> There are numerous examples of this issue. My question is: what is the
> recommended way to delete an old version application x. This assumes of
> course that you are sure that it is not depended upon by some other app.
>

Well you don't want to just 'pkg_delete -f' the older versions, since
there will probably be a lot of files that got updated by the new version,
which would cause a big mess.

Personally I have always just installed the newer version of a port on-top
of the older one.  Then I go through the package "database" and fix the
dependencies (I actually have a small script to do this for me).  The
package "database" is stored in the /var/db/pkg directory.  Each port
has it's own subdirectory, each of which contains a few files to describe
the package, it's dependencies, files, etc.  After fixing the
dependencies I just remove the directory for the old package and it's
"uninstalled".  I don't know if this is the best way to go about
maintaining packages, and I realize that lots of unused/old files are
being left around, but FWIW I have not run into any problems.  Maybe
someone has better advice?

Also, I never really liked the idea of using portupgrade because it
maintains a separate database and a completely different set of commands.
I'm not saying portupgrade is bad since I really can't judge it, but (I
know I sound like a prick here, but ...) if it's so good then why isn't it
incorporated into the base system?  I'm certainly open to new ideas, etc,
but portupgrade seems like more of a bandaid to the original pkg database
then fixing the "problem" (of upgrading ports and maintaining the
database).

Comments?  Let me know if I'm way out of line. :)



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021024231510.O22947-100000>