Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:42:14 +0100 From: Mathias Picker <Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/HEADSUP] portmaster default -w (preserve shared libraries) Message-ID: <1355247734.48552.26.camel@mp> 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
Am Dienstag, den 11.12.2012, 18:16 +0200 schrieb Kimmo Paasiala: > 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. +1 Cheers, Mathias > > -Kimmo > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1355247734.48552.26.camel>