Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:18:26 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Order of canonical upgrade sequence Message-ID: <05285081-3881-4AD7-8F17-EF919F2A0076@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-AzBcm_%2BobVN5aczQdt=GG6U_JnFXyv3dwrG5YMxt%2B=w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADLo83-AzBcm_%2BobVN5aczQdt=GG6U_JnFXyv3dwrG5YMxt%2B=w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 29, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > Hi all! >=20 > Back in 2005, when Alexander Leidinger wrote the make delete-old > target, he documented the order of upgrade such that it should be run > before mergemaster [1]; >=20 > # 7. `make installworld' > # 8. `make delete-old' > # 9. `mergemaster' >=20 > I have merged the delete-old section of the Handbook into the > upgrading chapter, and independently decided to put mergemaster first, > because I thought it would be safer, but checked here before I > committed. >=20 > I think that steps 8 and 9 should be reversed, because of the > possibility of an unbootable system being made, when an rc script > references an executable that has just been removed for example. While I don't care, any old scripts that are removed won't make the = system unbootable. delete-old deletes both the executable and the rc = script in those cases where we've moved functionality out of the base = system. The rc scripts themselves have protection against executables = not found, and the damage will be limited to at most the one script that = references that binary. Since the binary is gone, the ill effects are = minimal. So I'm finding it hard to believe this is a credible example of danger. > I cannot think of an example where the system is left > unbootable/damaged if make delete-old is run after mergemaster. I'm not sure that it will be that much safer, but to be honest, I run = delete-old about once every presidential election cycle on my machines. > What do people think of the patch at [2]? It's likely a tiny bit safer, but I don't think it is necessary. Warner > Chris >=20 > [1] http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/Makefile?r1=3D148329&r2=3D148330= & >=20 > [2] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/delete-old-order.diff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?05285081-3881-4AD7-8F17-EF919F2A0076>