Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:11:11 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: port vs. packages vs. FreeBSD updating (was: FreeBSD Security Survey) Message-ID: <m3k68ecqtc.fsf_-_@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org> (Scott Long's message of "Sun, 21 May 2006 23:44:27 -0600") References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org> <20060521231657.O6063@abigail.angeltread.org> <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes: > I share this frustration with you. I was once told that the pain in > upgrading is due largely to a somewhat invisible difference between > installing a pre-compiled package, and building+installing a port. Well, the last time I saw this as a major issue was when people were innocently attempting to install packages fetched from packages-6-stable .tbz with rcNG scripts, that already expected a 6.1 base system (rcorder(8) migration) on 6\.0-RELEASE(-p.*)? - this failed horribly for some users with services not being started since the new rcNG script naming wasn't at the time supported by the base system. These issues did not ever affect, AFAICS, building ports from source -- however, doing this requires a lot of machine horsepower. Regardless of the creation of a stable ports branch, I'd URGE to add "minimum and maximum OSVERSION required" tags to packages to prevent their being installed on incompatible systems. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3k68ecqtc.fsf_-_>