Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:47:37 -0700 From: Gary Aitken <ah@dreamchaser.org> To: kpneal@pobox.com, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl>, "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net>, FreeBSD Questions !!!! <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Stupid question .... Message-ID: <54A2D729.3010701@dreamchaser.org> In-Reply-To: <20141230055551.GB5839@neutralgood.org> References: <54A1E9D4.60504@hiwaay.net> <20141230005702.GB2910@slackbox.erewhon.home> <20141230020549.cc26aa46.freebsd@edvax.de> <20141230055551.GB5839@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/29/14 22:55, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 02:05:49AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:57:02 +0100, Roland Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 05:55:00PM -0600, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> .... I have been doing 'pkg upgrades' from an rxvt shell window for >>>> months now. They have been going mostly OK, with a few rectifiable >>>> glitches. Is it better/recommended to do so from the 'console' CLI, i.e. >>>> no desktop, no XFCE, etc., just plain login shell ? just checking .... >>> >>> I don't think pkg will care much what kind of terminal it runs on. Or what >>> shell for that matter. >> >> I think the primary concern here is the observation that >> during a "pkg upgrade", the binaries (and other files) >> corresponding to the programs currently running will be >> overwritten. This _might_ caus problems when the in-memory >> image of a program doesn't "match" its on-disk counterpart >> (for example, for loading additional stuff), but in fact, >> I've never experienced this - I tend to use pkg from within >> a normal X terminal (xterm). > > Is this even possible? I thought that binaries being executed were read-only. > With a local filesystem you can delete the binary and install a new one > with no problems, but the existing binary cannot be changed. > > At least, that's how it used to work with statically linked executables. > > Can anyone confirm that shared libraries and dlopen()'d objects are the > same? > > I have run into this problem before, but I was running binaries out of > AFS. AFS is ... special ... in lots of ways. I can't confirm anything one way or the other, but way back when the in-use file got renamed and marked for deletion when no longer in use, but was still used ok because once accessed references are based on its i-node, not its name. However, if a dynamic library has references to *other* dynamic libraries which have not yet been used, and those libraries are updated, then when a use of them is actually triggered by the already in use library they would not match. Someone with more in-depth knowledge may be able to verify or correct that statement... Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A2D729.3010701>