Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:07:58 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: linux_base-8 upgrade requires immediate testing Message-ID: <1104271678.782.41.camel@luna.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <opsjoyrbkw9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <20041224081549.GA34007@xor.obsecurity.org> <opsjoyrbkw9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Montag, den 27.12.2004, 18:10 -0600 schrieb Jeremy Messenger:
> I only notice many problems with linux ports are that those pkg-plist need
> to be fix. Sorry, I forgot to '>&' to create log because it was over
> scroll in my screen when I 'pkg_delete -f linux-\*' to deinstall linux
> apps then 'pkg_delete -f linux\*' to deinstall linux_base-8. More like
> linux_base-8, linux-XFree86-libs, linux-atk, linux-pango, linux-gtk2 and
> few other linux-* pkg-plist.
You got those messages because you used "pkg_delete -f". They aren't
deinstalled in reversed dependency order, they are deinstalled in either
lexicographic order ("ls -1d /var/db/pkg/linux*") or in create-time
order ("find /var/db/pkg -name linux\* -print")... I'm too laze to look
up which order is used. If you use pkg_deinstall (from portupgrade
fame), it deinstalls in the reversed dependency order.
This doesn't means the patch is free of flaws. An experimental build on
the cluster showed some problems. We've through several rounds of
bugfixing. So far (the patch you've tested) we've fixed the major
problems (except one or two which we are investigating right now). Some
minor ones (since Kris hasn't forwarded those yet, I assume those are
general flaws of the current state of our linux-bits in the ports
collection :-) ) can be fixed after the patch hits the tree.
Bye,
Alexander.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1104271678.782.41.camel>