From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 7 12:25:04 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB0D16A4CE for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:25:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBFD543D39 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:25:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Mike.Jeays@rogers.com) Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.108?) (mjeays2551@24.114.152.139 with plain) by smtp102.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2005 12:25:02 -0000 From: Mike Jeays To: tkelly-freebsd-questions@taborandtashell.net In-Reply-To: <41DE0F6F.3040303@taborandtashell.net> References: <41DDB2A7.8020001@wilderness.dyn.dhs.org> <41DE0F6F.3040303@taborandtashell.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1105100701.640.6.camel@chaucer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:25:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Laurence Sanford cc: FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: Remote upgrade possible? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:25:04 -0000 On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 23:26, Tabor Kelly wrote: > Laurence Sanford wrote: > > Joseph Koenig (jWeb) wrote: > > > > > This is possible, however you are always taking a chance when you > > installworld without going to single user mode first. That said, I make > > a habit out of pushing my luck with systems I have in front of me by > > going so far as to make installworld while using an xterm in X-windows. > > I routinely use 'portupgrade -rRN' in xterm, in X-Windows to install new > ports on my box. The second to last time I did this, one of the ports > what was upgraded was xterm. And it worked! Can anybody explain to my > why nothing bad happened? Am I running a risk when I do this? This seems pretty safe to me. When xterm gets invoked, the whole of the code gets loaded into memory for execution, and there is no reason why it would look at the disk copy again. If you upgrade the xterm binary, nothing will happen to xterms that are already running. If you create new ones, you will get the new version. I am more surprised that there are still any udpdates being made to xterm - it must have been essentially stable for years now.