From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 15 02:23:27 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3539316A40F for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:23:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@voidcaptain.com) Received: from mx4.x15.net (mx4.x15.net [69.55.237.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B5A43D45 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:23:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@voidcaptain.com) Received: from j1.x15.net [63.196.213.76] by mx4.x15.net with ESMTP id 608060222X1GO3MU000CNF2g; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:23:26 +0000 Message-ID: <450A0E7F.5090400@voidcaptain.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:22:55 -0700 From: Pete Slagle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olivier Nicole References: <200609150147.k8F1l73F029577@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> In-Reply-To: <200609150147.k8F1l73F029577@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Poutupgrade unsafe X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:23:27 -0000 Olivier Nicole wrote: > I know the mistake was on my side, I was not carefull enough when > using portupgrade on a production machine but... > > Yesterday I froze our system for about one hour when I used > portupgrade to upgrade Samba. It was a very minor upgrade (from 3.0.10 > to 3.0.23c,1 I think), but it happens that in between the 2 versions > the location of the password file for Samba has been changed. > > I beleive that the port maintener has a very good reason why to change > this directory, but portupgrade would build and install the new Samba > silently (if the message at the begining of the makefile did ever > show, it was drawn into the flow of portupgrade messages) resulting > the new Samba did not accept any connection. > > I think that such modification should be considered as critical and > portupgrade should stop and request acknowledgement before it keeps on > installing. I am not sure the mechanism exists in portupgrade, but I > see it as a very usefull enhancement. This one bit me too, but we have only ourselves to blame; there was a clear (well, pretty clear) warning of the change in /usr/ports/UPDATING. You would never forget to check UPDATING before running portupgrade would you? :)