Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:06:55 -0800 From: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG (Bruce A. Mah) To: Mike Harding <mvh@ix.netcom.com> Cc: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, kaltorak@quake.com.au, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports updating... Good ways? Message-ID: <200102081706.f18H6tj43176@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20010208152133.03F37E6A17@netcom1.netcom.com> References: <3A8208E7.C6EE4C24@quake.com.au> <20010208061814.5E6C5E6A17@netcom1.netcom.com> <200102080635.f186ZPe39170@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> <20010208152133.03F37E6A17@netcom1.netcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_353712189P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[moved to -ports]
If memory serves me right, Mike Harding wrote:
>
> Well, just to defend myself...
>
> I find that pkg_version -c is a useful tool for helping me do
> upgrades. I do put the result in a file and do the appropriate thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That was my point. You do *not* want to blindly execute the output of
"pkg_version -c".
I'm about --><-- this far away from crippling the output of "pkg_version
-c" so that it can't be run without editing. People don't realize how
dangerous this is; like it can actually render a system unusable. (I
know, it happened to a good friend of mine.)
> I do agree that something better is needed - one issue is the way that
> the ports system tracks dependencies. If the dependency was tracked
> in the dependent port rather than the other way around (in other
> words, the ports notes that it needs the library rather than the
> library noting that it is needed by another port) then the whole
> upgrade issue would be simpler as you could actually make multiple
> scans over the dependencies until everything was in order. Right now
> the dependency information is 'lost' if you ugrade a library.
Yeah. I posted a brain-dump of what I think is needed to -ports
sometime earlier this week or last week. It's actually not that hard
now that we have the "port origin" information for installed ports. The
hard part is dealing with all the edge cases.
I think that it would be a great project for someone to hack on
bsd.port.mk to create a "make upgrade" target. But it has to be
extremely conservative in the face of pathologies.
> Also,
> say, upgrading X with the current system will cause huge amounts of
> things to be rebuilt - these ports depend on X but not the version.
I think that XFree86 is handled as a special case, but your point is
well-taken.
Bruce.
--==_Exmh_353712189P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000
iD8DBQE6gtIu2MoxcVugUsMRAklpAKDh0/N0Visap7CxG65cx2jUjZL28gCePz+C
XIRM5pGDozMSheH6H8Cn63o=
=3hJC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_353712189P--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102081706.f18H6tj43176>