Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:42:34 +0200 From: Pawel Pekala <pawel@FreeBSD.org> To: <joeb1@a1poweruser.com> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org, qjail@a1poweruser.com Subject: Re: ports/180773: [Maintainer update] sysutils/qjail Bug fix. Message-ID: <20130901134234.49f7fb96@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBGENLDAAA.joeb1@a1poweruser.com> References: <NBECLJEKGLBKHHFFANMBGENLDAAA.joeb1@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dnia 2013-08-30, o godz. 12:25:38 "joeb1" <joeb1@a1poweruser.com> napisa=B3(a): >Pawel >Thanks for committing my port. >The svn change log looks great, but some thing is very wrong. >I had qjail-3.1 installed on my system and after doing portsnap to get >qjail-3.2 I did a 'make install' on it and the check to see if qjail >was already installed did not happen. Pkg_info shows both qjail-3.1 and >qjail-3.2 are installed. This is an error. This should not happen. The >install of the new port qjail-3.2 should have found qjail-3.1 was >already installed and the make install should have terminated. I have >a development box running 9.1 which has a ports tree which is 3 months >old. This behavior does not happen there. >There have been some updates to the base ports environment which now >causes the check for port already installed to be ignored. Can you >look into this problem or should I submit a bug report? I can't reproduce it so maybe something is wrong with your ports installation. >I also see you removed the "post-fetch" messages and the port >update-instruction file. >The reason I set up the makefiles as I submitted them is because of >major internal differences between qjail2, qjail-3.0, qjail-3.1 that >causes major incompatibilities. The fact is Jails have to run the same >version of the operating system as the host and as such have the same >ports requirement as the host. IE: when crossing FreeBSD major version >boundaries 8.2 to 9.1, ports have to be updated, and when the host >operating system updates are within the same sub-version 8.0 to 8.1 >the ports do not have to be updated. The ports in a jail are also >effected by this same requirement, IE; all the existing jails have to >be recreated and populated with the desired ports just like the host >does. By design qjail is intended to only be updated to the current >version when the host update crosses a major version of FreeBSD, say >from 8.2 to 9.0, when going from 8.0 to 8.1 they should stay at the >same version of qjail so they don't have to recreate all there jails >under the new version of qjail. I have tried to configure the qjail >make files in such a way as to stop the user from ending up with jails >he has no control over because he updated his version of the qjail >port. What you are describing here is runtime behaviour, which can't always be controlled by ports infrastructure. I don't understand why you are so insistently trying "save" users from installing new version. Yes, it may not work, but this can be easily reversed - be it backup-ed old package, svn or git checkout of older version, many possibilities. Besides I like to think that users working with jails are knowledgeable enough to find and read documentation you provide or install older version of qjail package by means mentioned earlier etc. >To achieve that goal in the simplest manner I created the port make >files I submitted. It performs this way, >When 'make install' finds qjail is already installed the "post-fetch" >messages have already been displayed so the user will have access to >the update-instruction file that is included in the port make files. >This way he will learn he has to rename the qjail script before >continuing. If the user is installing the package version the >"post-fetch" messages have been dropped from the package but the >pkg-message is shown that points him to the update instruction file >that is contained with the installed port. Please remove your changes >to the make files and use the one I submitted as it works the way I >intended. If doing so breaks some port rules please open a dialog with >me so we can talk things over. Thanks Having same upgrade-info.txt file in ports tree in tarball is wasteful, ports tree is for files needed for building and installing mostly - this is why I insisted you should add it to distribution tarball. My other suggestion would be adding entry in /usr/ports/UPDATING. Shortened version of upgrade-info.txt should be enough for users to decide about upgrade - this IMHO proper thing to do. --=20 pozdrawiam / with regards Pawe=B3 P=EAkala
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130901134234.49f7fb96>