Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 May 2013 20:25:26 +0100
From:      Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>
Cc:        "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Order of canonical upgrade sequence
Message-ID:  <CADLo83-OXJNvoTo2XTje0tc1Cp2YpRNWMdkHzFUcuMtiSUzKmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130529205711.00000111@unknown>
References:  <CADLo83-AzBcm_%2BobVN5aczQdt=GG6U_JnFXyv3dwrG5YMxt%2B=w@mail.gmail.com> <9AD6CC08-8C59-4941-8C1D-54ABE74A162C@bsdimp.com> <20130529205711.00000111@unknown>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 May 2013 19:57, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:53:41 -0600
> Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>> [[ summarizing a conversation in irc ]]
>>
>> The below fragment doesn't match UPDATING. Since I don't think the
>> order matters; and since we've had no reports that UPDATING is wrong;
>> and since I think way more people follow updating than the Makefile;
>> we should fix the makefile and make the docs match both.
>
> The order matters, mergemaster first, then delete-old. UPDATING is
> correct. At least regarding the order all places should be corrected
> which tell to use the reverse order.
>
>> Warner
>>
>> On May 29, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > 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];
>> >
>> > #  7.  `make installworld'
>> > #  8.  `make delete-old'
>> > #  9.  `mergemaster'
>
> This is the wrong order.
>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> I agree.
>

Committed.  Thanks!

Chris



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-OXJNvoTo2XTje0tc1Cp2YpRNWMdkHzFUcuMtiSUzKmA>