Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:02:52 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Subject: Order of canonical upgrade sequence Message-ID: <CADLo83-AzBcm_%2BobVN5aczQdt=GG6U_JnFXyv3dwrG5YMxt%2B=w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all! Back in 2005, when Alexander Leidinger wrote the make delete-old target, he documented the order of upgrade such that it should be run before mergemaster [1]; # 7. `make installworld' # 8. `make delete-old' # 9. `mergemaster' I have merged the delete-old section of the Handbook into the upgrading chapter, and independently decided to put mergemaster first, because I thought it would be safer, but checked here before I committed. I think that steps 8 and 9 should be reversed, because of the possibility of an unbootable system being made, when an rc script references an executable that has just been removed for example. I cannot think of an example where the system is left unbootable/damaged if make delete-old is run after mergemaster. What do people think of the patch at [2]? Chris [1] http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/Makefile?r1=148329&r2=148330&; [2] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/delete-old-order.diff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-AzBcm_%2BobVN5aczQdt=GG6U_JnFXyv3dwrG5YMxt%2B=w>