From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 6 10:26:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061615C7 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:26:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D4C8FC14 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TVgMw-0003jS-Tp for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:26:59 +0100 Received: from 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl ([79.139.19.75]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:26:54 +0100 Received: from jb.1234abcd by 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:26:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: jb Subject: Re: freebsd-update and sources of 9.1-RC3 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <50952210.7060000@grosbein.net> <50953CD5.7010902@grosbein.net> <50961FF1.9010605@ose.nl> <509649B3.70700@ose.nl> <50965035.8030508@ose.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:26:53 -0000 Bas Smeelen ose.nl> writes: > ... > >> Since freebsd-update is meant to update the system I don't really see a > >> point to make it install sources (or others things) if they are not > >> present on the system being updated. > ... > > But, you brought up that "StrictComponents yes" option and we have to figure > > out what it means ... > > From looking at the freebsd-update script (it's in /usr/sbin) I > understand when StrictComponents is set to yes it skips the step, > inspecting system.... and uses the list provided in freebsd-update.conf, > so this option might save some time and disk activity. But then, after I removed /usr/src dir, it re-created it for itself just to create in there that ../release sub-dir with some documents, which looked useless to me, not to mention the fact that it attempted to install there some 20 or so other docs, but could not and failed with errors (see my test run output in earlier post). So, to me that is already a reason to ask the maintainer to look at it as it is an important utility. > I don't fully understand what the impact might be when running a custom > kernel. When I had src present (by my download) prior to freebsd-update upgrade, without custom kernel, without that "override" option ("StrictComponents no"), I got src updated in various places, in particular the file /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh, which is OK. If you had a custom kernel and src present, then src would get updated as above, and your custom kernel would be gone, but you would be asked to rebuild your kernel manually. So, it would be convinient for you to have src ready, by manual download or "override" option ("StrictComponents yes"). > ... > > # When upgrading between releases, should the list of Components be > > # read strictly (StrictComponents yes) or merely as a list of components > > # which *might* be installed of which FreeBSD Update should figure out > > # which actually are installed and upgrade those (StrictComponents no)? > > # StrictComponents no > > > > The components are: > > Components src world kernel > > > > Then what gives ? Does it not apply to src component ? When I looked at this "override" option, which is per default disabled, which is perfectly OK for most users, I understood it as not only saving some time on verification of current system state, but a real option to request full update of my system for components specified. This would make e.g. src download needed first time, but if that is what I wanted, it would be configurable and make sense for me and other people like the OP who actually expected it. It would make this utility fully functional, not half-baked like it is right now. jb