Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:44:49 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: vmunix.old@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: locked packages got upgraded anyway Message-ID: <20151014184449.GM55137@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CAAfFgn6BBWhhpvEbMYdL080oOUtYy4AsrLzyYDTrD5Z7Tx5U=A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAAfFgn6BBWhhpvEbMYdL080oOUtYy4AsrLzyYDTrD5Z7Tx5U=A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--JvUS8mwutKMHKosv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:24:01PM +0200, vmunix.old@gmail.com wrote: > * Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015, at 17:42, Rainer Duffner wrote: > >> > >> > Am 14.10.2015 um 00:31 schrieb Benjamin Connelly <ben@electricembers= =2Ecoop>: > >> > > >> > We have a few ports we compile with different compile time options t= han the FreeBSD binary repo, so we keep them locked. Last night when doing = some patching, we saw those locked packages get updated anyhow. For example= , pkg said all of these things on one system: > >> > > >> > >> > >> IMO, you either compile all of the packages you use yourself - or none. > >> > >> Until FreeBSD gets a sort of =E2=80=9Estable=E2=80=9C ports-tree that = lives for longer > >> than three months, running your own repo is almost a must for anything > >> even semi mission-critical. > >> > > > > He has a valid use case and I don't know why it was upgraded. Sounds > > like a bug. Perhaps because it was a dependency? Hmm... > > > > A planned* feature is for a user to be permitted to have packages with > > custom build options and "pkg upgrade" will handle fetching the required > > parts of the ports tree and building the updated package so you don't > > have to play this "lock your package, manually upgrade it later" game. > > Not everyone should be forced to run poudriere just so they can change > > one option on one package... > > > > * Planned as in "bapt or someone said we should do this when we have > > time" >=20 > Are there any plans to introduce sub-packages or "flavors"? Because that > would solve the issue of having to fiddle with Poudriere in order to build > packages with more options enabled once and for all for probably 99% of > all users. Yes there are plan for all of this but it takes a lot of time and we have v= ery little manpower. Best regards, Bapt --JvUS8mwutKMHKosv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlYeoqAACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ewh+QCeIYe+B/c6oC6GQfveZE8I+16v jgoAn3wiMg7CcUeuA1ajIax8zlVJlw7K =j6xd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JvUS8mwutKMHKosv--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151014184449.GM55137>