Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:18:48 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: "Chris Maness" <chris@chrismaness.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade Operation Message-ID: <cb5206420603081118j700b59f1g8ce870e890060f82@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060308094831.M67603@ns1.internetinsite.com> References: <440E7707.3050602@chrismaness.com> <cb5206420603072314t43210f49geac4983d5ed9fa50@mail.gmail.com> <20060308094831.M67603@ns1.internetinsite.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/8/06, Chris Maness <chris@chrismaness.com> wrote: > I have been told that tracking the whole port tree on a production server > is a bad idea. I kind of agree thinking about the old addage "if it aint > broke don't fix it." Arguably the best strategy for the base system. Arguably a bad idea in case of 3d party software. In most cases untested updates do not enter the ports tree. Just use the -b flag when portupgrading and go back if you meet a show-stopper. Lately we've been experiencing trouble with something as critical as quagga. That only caused a half an hour late night outage on a single server. We haven't had any trouble apart from that in a year. With hundreds of ports in production, we find it delicious to have them all so easily and seamlessly updated. > But, if a security issue becomes known with a port > that I have installed, I definately want to fix the issue. Your answere > definately confirmed for me how port upgrade works. > > It seems that other dependant ports would not have to be current on the t= ree if > they were re-compiled allowing autoconf to establish the location of depe= nded > files. However, it seems that portupgrade does not uninstall and re-comp= ile if > the dependant ports have not changed (ie the folder containing the ports > make file and patches), it only recompiles parts of the tree > that have been upgraded, and are linked via portupgrade -rR. > > It would be nice if portupgrade had a flag to do that (that is if my logi= c > is correct). -f > It would be nice if ports forked the way src does. Then I could just > track bugfixes and security issues. I'd say that you can hardly find an update which is neither.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420603081118j700b59f1g8ce870e890060f82>