From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 8 19:18:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B8316A420 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:18:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C656943D5A for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:18:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i13so474321wra for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:18:49 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AemCxEE9WES3flB/pKjWynsr/cE6QglVFCHsZvmo3PCNz+3SmBTnypUQZyR7jaB2uir84PHJc9y+WKNyIOrosPGcU8vnWs166OALeBZq7WOL9NWlIqsGoiSjUedZTUE/qG1xlR3vyjIet4N59xWYVMK5S23Xb8/rg6uuVJVtqJU= Received: by 10.54.149.14 with SMTP id w14mr1093269wrd; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.105.5 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:18:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:18:48 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" To: "Chris Maness" In-Reply-To: <20060308094831.M67603@ns1.internetinsite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <440E7707.3050602@chrismaness.com> <20060308094831.M67603@ns1.internetinsite.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade Operation X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:18:51 -0000 On 3/8/06, Chris Maness wrote: > I have been told that tracking the whole port tree on a production server > is a bad idea. I kind of agree thinking about the old addage "if it aint > broke don't fix it." Arguably the best strategy for the base system. Arguably a bad idea in case of 3d party software. In most cases untested updates do not enter the ports tree. Just use the -b flag when portupgrading and go back if you meet a show-stopper. Lately we've been experiencing trouble with something as critical as quagga. That only caused a half an hour late night outage on a single server. We haven't had any trouble apart from that in a year. With hundreds of ports in production, we find it delicious to have them all so easily and seamlessly updated. > But, if a security issue becomes known with a port > that I have installed, I definately want to fix the issue. Your answere > definately confirmed for me how port upgrade works. > > It seems that other dependant ports would not have to be current on the t= ree if > they were re-compiled allowing autoconf to establish the location of depe= nded > files. However, it seems that portupgrade does not uninstall and re-comp= ile if > the dependant ports have not changed (ie the folder containing the ports > make file and patches), it only recompiles parts of the tree > that have been upgraded, and are linked via portupgrade -rR. > > It would be nice if portupgrade had a flag to do that (that is if my logi= c > is correct). -f > It would be nice if ports forked the way src does. Then I could just > track bugfixes and security issues. I'd say that you can hardly find an update which is neither.