Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:18:10 +0100
From:      RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: How did upgrading applications happen before portupgrade etc?
Message-ID:  <20070812181810.2b17d85f@gumby.homeunix.com.>
In-Reply-To: <20070812142059.35077b0d@deskjail>
References:  <20070811115642.L34115@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <20070811083357.GA34007@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20070811145314.A47727@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <20070811203322.GA78245@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20070811225858.7eb933ef@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20070812142059.35077b0d@deskjail>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:20:59 +0200
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote:

> Quoting RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> (Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:58:58
> +0100):
> 
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:33:22 -0700
> > Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 03:02:53PM +0400, Rakhesh Sasidharan
> > > wrote:
> > > >> 5.  pkg_delete port
> > > >
> > > > I see. In step 5, "pkg_delete port" wont work if port is
> > > > required by others right? So you delete those apps too? Could
> > > > be a lot of stuff to uninstall, right?
> > > 
> > > Absolutely correct.  That might seem like a nightmare to most
> > > people, but to me it's not. 
> > 
> > It's not correct,  "pkg_delete -f" can force the deletion. I would
> > manually upgrade a port like this:
> > 
> > cd /usr/ports/misc/foo 
> > make   ; do the build
> > pkg_info -qO misc/foo ; get old package name
> > pkg_create -b <old-package-name>  ; backup existing package
> > /usr/local/etc/rc.d/foo stop ; stop the daemon if needed
> > pkg_delete -f <old-package-name>  ; force removal
> > make install
> 
> At this point your /var/db/pkg/ directory does not reflect reality
> anymore,

I know, I was just pointing out that it is possible to upgrade a port
manually without removing every single package that depends on it.

Actually having dependencies package version mismatches needn't cause
any significant problems. And massaging them into self-consistency is
itself a form of corruption, since you lose information about what was
built against what. 



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070812181810.2b17d85f>