Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:13:52 -0400
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Chris Maness <chris@chrismaness.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: Upgrade Tool
Message-ID:  <20060429221351.GA67787@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <4453E231.1030107@chrismaness.com>
References:  <44538D42.8030301@chrismaness.com> <20060429185437.GA62359@xor.obsecurity.org> <4453E231.1030107@chrismaness.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 03:01:21PM -0700, Chris Maness wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:58:58AM -0700, Chris Maness wrote:
> > =20
> >>Currently, I download the tarballs for each specific application by=20
> >>hand, delete the old folder, then untar the new directory in the ports=
=20
> >>tree.  Is there an app that does this without having to do this by=20
> >>hand.  I know about cvs syncing the whole ports tree, but I prefer to=
=20
> >>upgrade the specific applications that have issues not the whole tree.
> >>   =20
> >
> >This is much harder than you might think; often applications depend on
> >other applications and infrastructure elements in complex and
> >unintuitive ways, so you will easily get your system into an
> >inconsistent, unbuildable state following this method.
> >
> >The only foolproof way to do it is to update the entire tree; tools
> >like portsnap and cvsup make this *really easy*, so why add extra
> >effort and risks?
> >
> >Kris
> > =20
> I do this because it is not necessary to build every third party=20
> application just because I have a problem with one.  I have ran into=20
> this UNIX version of DLL hell, but it was easy to fix after I synced the=
=20
> whole tree and ran portupgrade -a.  That just rebuilt everything=20
> installed, and made everything current.  I have been upgrading single=20
> apps by hand with no ill results for a while.  The only time igot into=20
> trouble was after I synced the whole tree and tried only upgrading some=
=20
> of the apps.  It just seems like re-compiling every application every=20
> time portaudit finds a security hole is a waste of processor time.

Except that portupgrade -a doesn't do this.

Anyway, no-one is forcing you to run portupgrade -a if you don't want
to.

IMO, it's still not worth the hassle of manually updating your ports
tree in little bits and pieces, even if there was a foolproof way to
do that.

Kris


--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEU+UfWry0BWjoQKURAnmiAKDxSoDk8mZVCVP5XEIfxDvVZ37xAQCgjQPV
vn26HQpZfdTkDbfNXLRh480=
=7r9E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060429221351.GA67787>