Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:10:19 -0500 (EST) From: batz <batsy@vapour.net> To: Mark Foster <mdf@enic.cc> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Managing port security upgrades (was:Re: PHP 4.1.2) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203131506270.5001-100000@vapour.net> In-Reply-To: <1016047905.6825.34.camel@smokey.lan.enic.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Mar 2002, Mark Foster wrote: :Sounds alot like :pkg_version -c -v | sh : :(assuming an updated ports tree) Yeah, it does. So much for streamlining. Somebody close the patent office, everything has been invented. Thanks:) : :On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:07, batz wrote: :> 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 : -- -- batz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0203131506270.5001-100000>