From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 28 18:51:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282E916A4CE for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD1943D46 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from 209-6-197-67.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.197.67] helo=jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1Bf1De-0002R1-00 for questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:51:08 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16608.26774.233788.432969@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:51:02 -0400 To: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20040628172641.GB2963@shark.localdomain> References: <20040628134639.GA5699@shark.localdomain> <16608.13888.194802.955936@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20040628172641.GB2963@shark.localdomain> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta16) "celeriac" XEmacs Lucid Subject: Re: Updating source code manually X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:13 -0000 Sergey Zaharchenko writes: > When a file is open by a process, even if you unlink it and replace it > with another one, the original file will stay on disk until the last > file handle referencing it is closed. Yes. > I assume that holds true for libraries too. I don't ... but I must also allow as I'm talking at the border between understanding, informed speculation, and outright guesswork. > So, EXISTING processes aren't screwed. But, when a NEW > process is created, it references the NEW shared library, and if their > ABI's don't match --- BOOM!:) That was just a correction. > > I was under the impression that the OP already had KDE (and thus all > `father' ports) installed and up-to-date, and only wanted to patch a > file. I don't remember whether he said "up to date"; if so, then my worries are moot. I run a few KDE apps, but very little of the larger environment, Every time I have upgraded even one of those apps it has provoked a long, tortuous (and not always sucessful) session of upgrading other ports. > Please read more carefully. I mentioned '-w'. Mea culpa. Sorry. Robert Huff