Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:38:27 -0600 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC/HEADSUP] portmaster default -w (preserve shared libraries) Message-ID: <CADLFtte=_oGVySzkUP%2BqSMHa=qU4k2uMZMA01ESgfYnEkunKdg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWScXnLqW=5kuG9_1Tj6aYptUJeUQY-64zzvTtEGVcVK9Cg@mail.gmail.com> References: <50C7576C.5040100@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2B7WWScXnLqW=5kuG9_1Tj6aYptUJeUQY-64zzvTtEGVcVK9Cg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> wrote: >> (As maintainer) I'm proposing to make -w the default for portmaster. >> This will preserve old shared libraries when upgrading. This helps 2 things: >> >> 1. Prevents a broken system during upgrades >> 2. Prevents a broken system after upgrading for ports that did not get a >> PORTREVISION bump from a shared library update. >> >> You have certainly ran into this problem with large library updates such >> as png, pcre, openssl, etc. >> >> Portupgrade has always done this as default, and I have never seen any >> problems arise from it. It also cleans up prevents duplicated library >> versions. If portmaster is not already doing this, I will ensure it does. >> >> You could then use pkg_libchk to rebuild any lingering ports if you >> wanted to ensure your system was using the latest. Then cleanout the >> preserved shared library. >> >> Of course there will be a way to stick to the old default of not >> preserving the libraries. >> >> Someone may consider this a POLA violation, but I consider that a broken >> system from missing libraries and PORTREVISION bumps is more of a POLA >> violation. >> >> >> The other option to ensuring that all ports work correctly after a >> shared library update is to just rebuild any port which recursively is >> affected by another port being updated. I think this is fine in >> scenarios such as tinderbox/poudriere, but with end-user compiling ports >> on their system, this may quickly become too much of a burden. >> >> >> Regards, >> Bryan Drewery >> >> > > Absolutely yes from me. The -w option is real lifesaver and should be > on by default. I disagree. The -w is a temp fix and not a correct solution, so it shouldn't be default. > -Kimmo -- mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFtte=_oGVySzkUP%2BqSMHa=qU4k2uMZMA01ESgfYnEkunKdg>