Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 02:28:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upgrade of file(1) to 4.10 (including FreeBSD elf(5) fixes) Message-ID: <20040809092856.GA33479@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <37C15666-E9E5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040809090740.GB31766@dragon.nuxi.com> <37C15666-E9E5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 08:31:15PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>As usual, file(1) has to follow. Anyway, since it works for now, and > >>currently there is no reason to break it, why is it bad? I actually > >>like > >>that feature, and it is useful for debugging ports that should have > >>been > >>recompiled after a system upgrade. > > > >Sounds like you're trying to work around bugs in the Ports Collection, > >please go fix those bugs and use the proper tool for the job. > > Could you please elaborate which bugs you are referring to? The current > file(1) works fine for me in this aspect, so what are better tools for > the job? It appears you're concerned when FreeBSD X.Y comes out, you've got ports compiled on X.(Y-1). This is not a problem, and I'm not sure why you feel it is that you appear to run file(1) across all of /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 and reinstall any binaries you find from X.(Y-1). Since X.Y will run X.(Y-1) binaries just fine I'm not sure why you have this need. portupgrade(8) is the proper tool to refresh all your ports. If you find that X.Y can't run an X.(Y-1) binary then the root cause of that bug should be fixed. I don't see that your method of running file(1) across everything scales well to the typical user. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040809092856.GA33479>