Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 17:34:49 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make install Message-ID: <23951.888111289@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:00:49 MST." <199802202000.NAA00546@pencil-box.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ok. I install foo-1.2 via the ports system with make install. it has > lots of files in /usr/local/mumble/foo-1.2. At a later point in time > foo 1.3 comes out. I do a cvs update in /usr/ports/mumble/foo and a > make install. It installs the new version just fine, but doesn't > remove the old version first. I still have /usr/local/mumble/foo-1.2 > files around (as well as /var/db/pkg/foo-1.2 and now a > /var/db/pkg/foo-1.3). Yep. Debian "solves" this by having the upgrade system automatically deinstall all previous versions before installing the new, but this apparently pisses a lot of folks off when an auto-deinstallation is overly destructive or doesn't quite do what was expected (imagine a deinstall of a port that has other ports depending on it, or depends on other ports which now need to potentially be upgraded). It's a nasty can of worms. :) Probably the only truly non-hostile way of handling it would be to give each subsequent version of a port an "upgrade" hook which would do very specific and specialized things to upgrade it, removing only those components which were known to be dreck in the new port and selectively upgrading other components as necessary (each component also having its own semi-intelligent update procedure). In other words, try to encapsulate the kind of work that an expert user would do by hand in upgrading the port. But that's also a lot of work. :-( Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23951.888111289>