Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:58:13 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How did upgrading applications happen before portupgrade etc? Message-ID: <20070814085813.4i1rprmzjks08ogo@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070813123837.5436aeec@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <20070811115642.L34115@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <20070811083357.GA34007@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20070811145314.A47727@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <20070811203322.GA78245@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20070811225858.7eb933ef@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20070812142059.35077b0d@deskjail> <20070812181810.2b17d85f@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20070813081446.6nxh47n64ocg8ksk@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070813123837.5436aeec@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> (from Mon, 13 Aug 2007 =20 12:38:37 +0100): > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:14:46 +0200 > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > >> Quoting RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> (from Sun, 12 Aug 2007 >> 18:18:10 +0100): >> >> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:20:59 +0200 >> > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Quoting RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> (Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:58:58 >> >> +0100): > >> > Actually having dependencies package version mismatches needn't >> > cause any significant problems. >> >> It does cause problems. You have no +REQUIRED_BY file anymore, so >> pkg_delete allows you to remove it without a warning even if it is >> still needed. > > I didn't say it doesn't, I said it needn't. When I have to remove a It will. No doubts about this, sorry. It may be ok for some hobbyist =20 installation, but in the generic case you want to do it right (and the =20 OP asked for the generic case which includes production quality ports =20 management). > package manually as part of an upgrade, I use "pkg_delete -f", so it > doesn't matter. When I prune ports I use "portmanager -slid" which It's not about removing a port when updating. It's about correct leaf =20 ports detection which may be necessary from time to time. On a busy =20 (as in "ports are (de-)installed often") system this may be needed =20 more often than on a idle system. > doesn't rely on +REQUIRED_BY, and provides additional protection against > build-dependency deletion which you don't get from pkg_delete. portmanager ist very recent, it is even not as old as portupgrade. So =20 a discussion about what you do with current tools does not fit to the =20 topic of the original question which started this thread. Sidenote: I also don't see a benefit when pruning to keep the obscure =20 build dependencies of a port you don't want anymore. "In the good old =20 days"(TM) you searched for ports without a +REQUYIRED_BY field. Those =20 are the leaf ports. And then you used your brain to decide what to =20 remove or not. What we didn't had was an easy procedure for pruning =20 old distfiles. I was excited when I discovered this feature in =20 portupgrade. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Marriage is a lot like the army, everyone complains, but you'd be surprised at the large number that re-enlist. =09=09-- James Garner http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070814085813.4i1rprmzjks08ogo>