Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:14:40 +0100 From: Bob Eager <rde@tavi.co.uk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: smartmontools and update-smart-drivedb Message-ID: <20200429201440.7afbcf93@raksha.tavi.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200429181755.GA2481@elch.exwg.net> References: <SN6PR04MB5021A8218A5D99DEC45291A780AD0@SN6PR04MB5021.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20200429181755.GA2481@elch.exwg.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:17:55 +0200 Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net> wrote: > ## Carmel NY (carmel_ny@outlook.com): > > > 1) Why is the "update" procedure deliberately removed from the > > port? > > The svn history does mention it: > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=527607 > "Remove drivedb update binary as it will modify tracked files" > A port has no business modifying itself once installed - if > installed files have to be updated at runtime, these files should > live in /var/db/. > An acceptable solution in this case would be moving that drive db > to /var/db/smartmontools/ (or similar). When I start thinking about > that... perhaps the original (shipped) drive db should be kept as a > fallback, in case the user did not download (or delete) the updateable > drive db: I haven't seen any complaints about missing drive db updates > until now, which makes me suspect that for most people (me included) > the shipped drive db is "good enough" and few people ever tried to > update the drive db at all. Indeed. In all these years, I've only had to do it ONCE [1]. I leave it until a drive isn't recognised. I certainly wouldn't bother doing it on a regular basis - I wait until a drive isn't recognised. [1] And I wish I hadn't bothered. The drives I downloaded the update for are going back - they are two of the submarined SMR drives from Western Digital.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200429201440.7afbcf93>