From owner-freebsd-security Wed Mar 13 11:14:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from vapour.net (vapour.net [198.96.117.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896F37B404 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:14:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from vapour.net (vapour.net [198.96.117.180]) by vapour.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2DJ76b23455; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:07:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from batsy@vapour.net) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:07:06 -0500 (EST) From: batz To: Adam Wight Cc: Andrew McNaughton , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Managing port security upgrades (was:Re: PHP 4.1.2) In-Reply-To: <20020313101646.A4570@brsys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Adam Wight wrote: :What about a new make target, "upgrade," that only sync'ed the ports :subtree for the port being built and its dependencies? Hrm, so it would be implemented in the makefiles of the entire ports collection? A top level makefile or one in each port? I was thinking about this a bit more, and it occured to me that using /var/db/pkg as a reference point, and either sup'ing a new port, which would then get a sort of 'reverse dependancies' list, from /var/db/pkg/portname/+REQUIRED_BY, and selectively upgrading anything in there which had the original port as a dependancy. That sounds like it might run into problems with recursion, thoughts? -- batz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message