Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:04:46 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/HEADSUP] portmaster default -w (preserve shared libraries) Message-ID: <20121211210446.15c3f2be@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <50C7871B.9030706@FreeBSD.org> References: <50C7576C.5040100@FreeBSD.org> <CA%2B7WWScXnLqW=5kuG9_1Tj6aYptUJeUQY-64zzvTtEGVcVK9Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CADLFtte=_oGVySzkUP%2BqSMHa=qU4k2uMZMA01ESgfYnEkunKdg@mail.gmail.com> <50C762C4.9080302@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo838vaR2bXme4bFC=toFagL0--2F0vjCi61Fr_RYMixkRsw@mail.gmail.com> <50C7871B.9030706@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:18:51 +0100 Alex Dupre wrote: > For simple ports it may works correctly, but for others it could > happen that finally both revisions are linked into a library or > executable (because one !recompiled dependency depends on the old > version and another recompiled dependency depends on the new version) > and this is not good. So the correct thing is to always recompile > ports to get the new version, the 'keep old libs' flags should be > used with caution (this is why I prefer it to be opt-in and not > opt-out). The main reason for keeping the libraries is that it reduces the number of breakages during the upgrade process, which can be a very serious inconvenience, particularly if the forced update fails to complete. In my experience the problem you describe is much less significant.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121211210446.15c3f2be>