From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 11 10:42:31 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7F816A418 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:42:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from optimus.centralmiss.com (ns.centralmiss.com [206.156.254.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957BF13C468 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:42:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from draco.over-yonder.net (adsl-072-148-013-213.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [72.148.13.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by optimus.centralmiss.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941FD28BC9 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:42:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by draco.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 1DE0B61C43; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:42:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:42:30 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070811104229.GD94464@over-yonder.net> References: <20070811115642.L34115@obelix.home.rakhesh.com> <20070811083357.GA34007@eos.sc1.parodius.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070811083357.GA34007@eos.sc1.parodius.com> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16-fullermd.4 (2007-06-09) Subject: Re: How did upgrading applications happen before portupgrade etc? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:42:31 -0000 On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 01:33:57AM -0700 I heard the voice of Jeremy Chadwick, and lo! it spake thus: > > I'm one of those administrators who does not want something like > portupgrade on his systems; I do not believe in having two separate > databases maintaining dependencies and what's installed (portupgrade > vs. base system pkg_* tools). Lots of people love portupgrade, and > that's great. But the number of times I have seen reports of > database corruption or "database sync mismatches" (portupgrade > thinks A, while pkg_* thinks B) is astounding. I'm always a little surprised at statements like this... portupgrade manages all the regular /var/db/pkg/*/* files just like any other tool. It's got its db files, sure, but they're caches, not alternate masters. I've never seen a "sync mismatch" (or rather, I see them all the time, when portupgrade sees that the source is newer than its cache and updates the cache). I've seen them go wonky a time or two when I've upgrade bdb or ruby-bdb, but so what? You blow 'em away and recreate them. I blow 'em away every time I upgrade ruby or ruby-bdb or bdb just out of GP to head off potential troubles. With the growing number of installed ports, rebuilding the pkgdb.db files takes a "long" time, but it's what, a minute? Minute and a half? There are certainly reasons to dislike portupgrade (like that it's slow. Godawful long. Where's-War-And-Peace-I-need-something-to-read slow. It's almost as slow as yum is on a machine twice as fast), but I don't understand this one. The db's dont go wonky with any notable regularity IME, and when they do you just rm 'em and move on. What's the big deal? -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.