From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 22:26:20 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9130147D for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205EC3A0 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so15764638wgh.8 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TjIncL9TFLCTkCTq1cNV0KAT9I83mIYMfoUuX9l7YHo=; b=yIB6x1tLz/UJft20nPr5ioOTXzlDg2dSUsaY+7tChmoLSTOMUzcp5Kt6nmVtbLm4Nd 6ll0gQ6OlUM+Spvv36z2mI3gYIOlJ1pOIbQmsywRBTeC0hCx3O5Tiw+7ifHDqs1lIgwJ 2H0sdlXGGDoR9GcG9TdxgxKnHWZc1LRovSiuQGkX7gGcL0ED07OsKEWDzRSsMPzTPIac ZziZ7Bpo1zTiib3cRqTjaRVAN2yhR/rbqKKuj81AqV5pRQkmG7u88Jdx6+2VZGpnwhiC 216/KLB1QAuQD1adA4yMzJUz4J5pxUU5N8BtyuKX8Oa42P9lnkwrW/X2HTcXuSDkDTZm iUrA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.246.130 with SMTP id xw2mr53989745wjc.33.1418682378527; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.186.137 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <548F5C6F.7040309@digiware.nl> References: <548F4F62.4020308@digiware.nl> <548F5C6F.7040309@digiware.nl> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:26:18 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: I do not quite understand why a BIND upgrade needs to touch soo much. From: Brandon Allbery To: Willem Jan Withagen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:26:20 -0000 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > Yup, more than true in the ultimate case. > Although 'portupgrade bind99' in this case did not require any other > packages to be upgraded too. > Hm; I'd expect it to notice the new gettext and build that as well, since the new bind might depend on changes in it (it has no way of knowing that in this case it's safe). OTOH this explains some of the screw cases that portuprade used to get me into, which are why I use portmaster these days.... Still leaves the point that 'pkg upgrade bind99' removes packages > without reinstalling those. The only alternatives are: > - pkg upgrade, and everything is upgraded > - capture the list of deletion, and manually re-add them after > the upgrade > This comes of prebuilt packages. In theory, a poudriere setup could be managed so that you updated only the bind99 Makefile. If you're relying on the standard packages, or updating a poudriere ports tree without checking /usr/ports/UPDATING first, you have no way to limit the update and get a bind99 package built against the old gettext; you have little choice but to upgrade everything. Any other package manager would give you the same result. (Something like nix gives you the option of the "In theory..." above about poudriere. The *default* behavior won't differ.) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net