From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jul 6 14:38:34 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB7FDAF739 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:38:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:c4ea:bd49:619b:6cb3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "infracaninophile.co.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86EB37263F for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:38:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from zero-gravitas.local (unknown [85.199.232.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92AC6CAA8 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk; dmarc=none header.from=FreeBSD.org Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/92AC6CAA8; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral Subject: Re: FreeBSD did it again (still) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <27b3c757-1f00-a033-03f6-303a82ab65f2@columbus.rr.com> <3ce31ee2-5e35-d31c-71ca-dc95ece2dd61@intersonic.se> <020431a6-1a7d-d80e-0725-585c21f3ef27@columbus.rr.com> <563b14d5-ebfb-62b6-28ac-3ebbd663d067@intersonic.se> <8c1bb853-5eb0-4fae-ee26-5ff4684c2b3a@saunalahti.fi> <1499345128.3276.2.camel@gmail.com> <3cbeca30-8801-d800-edcb-f64ea2f079e0@columbus.rr.com> From: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <9c9b2c25-e65d-3489-e483-d99c2e746e56@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:38:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V1H629rIktFTM6nj2VjEeHaXdaJpcjkjA" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 14:38:34 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --V1H629rIktFTM6nj2VjEeHaXdaJpcjkjA Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="tcgk9GmONDgSGViML5Nml4ShFtDX2oMpN"; protected-headers="v1" From: Matthew Seaman To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <9c9b2c25-e65d-3489-e483-d99c2e746e56@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD did it again (still) References: <27b3c757-1f00-a033-03f6-303a82ab65f2@columbus.rr.com> <3ce31ee2-5e35-d31c-71ca-dc95ece2dd61@intersonic.se> <020431a6-1a7d-d80e-0725-585c21f3ef27@columbus.rr.com> <563b14d5-ebfb-62b6-28ac-3ebbd663d067@intersonic.se> <8c1bb853-5eb0-4fae-ee26-5ff4684c2b3a@saunalahti.fi> <1499345128.3276.2.camel@gmail.com> <3cbeca30-8801-d800-edcb-f64ea2f079e0@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: --tcgk9GmONDgSGViML5Nml4ShFtDX2oMpN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017/07/06 14:46, Warren Block wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Baho Utot wrote: >=20 >> Well FYI the upgrade base 10.1 to 11.0-p10 when as expected. Update >> the ports to the current quarterly was a tragic happening. I have >> done this before upgrade a desktop from 10.3 to 11.0-p0 then to >> 11.0-p9. Again the ports just did not work as it resulted in a broken= >> desktop each time. I started using the quarterly ports branch >> thinking I get some stablilty. No stability to be found. Should I >> user be able to update without going thru a weeks worth of debugging? = >> I think that is not too much to ask. >=20 > It might or might not be obvious, but after going from FreeBSD 10 to 11= > all ports must be reinstalled. It is not possible to upgrade only some= > ports without mysterious breakages. pkg(8) is actually smart enough to realise that the ABI-version of the installed packages doesn't match either the ABI-version of the running kernel[*] or the ABI-version of the repository and it /should/ attempt to update or reinstall all installed packages to fix that. Much of the time that will "just work" -- but not always, which is why the standard advice is still to delete and reinstall all packages on a major version upgrade. Working out when and why pkg(8) can fail to do this correctly and teaching it how to get it right would be a really useful contribution. Cheers, Matthew [*] This can be overridden, so it is possible to run eg. a 10.3 jail on an 11.0 host and maintain the packages with pkg(8). --tcgk9GmONDgSGViML5Nml4ShFtDX2oMpN-- --V1H629rIktFTM6nj2VjEeHaXdaJpcjkjA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJZXktnXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxOUYxNTRFQ0JGMTEyRTUwNTQ0RTNGMzAw MDUxM0YxMEUwQTlFNEU3AAoJEABRPxDgqeTnWEIQALAnrBJykJUugINfSIIsFzut PqaWI+DhJHAB9nR5Ptyj8XjKQeOn64cf7uFXsbxDHQhesbGvmAgFWMVmB9uqS1JQ Za5JZmr1WTgK+GAkfalR3WKPGxPS0Ah/5BUEZhvEBbPsbXVtmx4LouOLz0ucLgez 4MY6PRlPMnL8zS1p6QgzdFiNhL8TaheZ23mhv3p06Yje1GVfxeE6FF4lI2igT8F0 KcVekdMZws+HunyqxxHAHxF6+PLVzyAYvxXgENm9SrPWxANPUXpK8mFF5+GEaYkF 0DVsjtOYv8yup1lGLXIKfJrMClj5igdwD5EIXEF9H1v9yry6YEXZKF4c6v17sVXP HyfM3Q2gCrIkVORqA0aivnOCDqk5oY68+Q6ZRVhmaYYLViGTRpaR/7wcLuPR2dz9 u+zFsRVbkszPpWFFJw1WId8IuWRJuUSEH5/Q1+8e04ffHTj0eH8ez42lBYQqr4u4 RQMIwjY2ZotGIi0QT9DMUCU1tkHYJ+ARtEQMFi79hPRhkEKOCDs8+lHyhNw8FEmo zj8X7vuTKw7dyHeS0vibi7eumMCdZSmJKcSn5kSdIg0d92Ptu7uR0D+hvbou4aU7 VNhiYY4XP4AvDz3ToVLNUO1EOt9Pbi1kSdZ5KJe3gYZ8R/6gyYDXzupyX8JpYtrB hEthiTbRcVptxjPREov9 =N+Hn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V1H629rIktFTM6nj2VjEeHaXdaJpcjkjA--