From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 09:30:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A5116A4CF for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:30:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from TRANG.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E1943D5E for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:30:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by TRANG.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i799T1he033580; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 02:29:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i799Su6X033574; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 02:28:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 02:28:56 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20040809092856.GA33479@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Oliver Eikemeier , Jon Noack , current@freebsd.org, Edwin Groothuis References: <20040809090740.GB31766@dragon.nuxi.com> <37C15666-E9E5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37C15666-E9E5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: Edwin Groothuis cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upgrade of file(1) to 4.10 (including FreeBSD elf(5) fixes) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:30:31 -0000 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)