From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 1 12:25:01 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A4B242 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aibo.runbox.com (aibo.runbox.com [91.220.196.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C24563D for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.9.9.241] (helo=rmm6prod02.runbox.com) by bars.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdHhS-0005mH-NN for pkg@freebsd.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:24:50 +0200 Received: from mail by rmm6prod02.runbox.com with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YdHhT-0002ug-32 for pkg@freebsd.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:24:51 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [Authenticated user (846156)] by runbox.com with http (RMM6); for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:24:51 GMT From: "Jeffrey Bouquet" Reply-To: jbtakk@iherebuywisely.com To: "pkg" Subject: Re: [CFT] Call for testing pkg 1.5.0 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:24:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: RMM6 In-Reply-To: <212148.13892.bm@smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-Id: X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:25:01 -0000 >On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:48:27 +0000 (UTC), "Thomas Mueller" wrote: > Excerpt from Baptiste Daroussin: > I noticed subversion bumped due to a vuxml vulnerability. It built but did= not install,=20 pkg-static not found [five or so files] ... in STAGE... reinstalled the earlier version by "pkg install subversion" Could STAGE >> << PKG installs be developed and tested further so that th= is would never happen? It did not used to under the old packaging system and is a regression in relia= bility* it seems, especially for overnight production machine upgrades where the earlier package may not to = found, or not compatible with other ports upgraded in the same session. Something like a test-stage-INSTALL before .build-done so the error is cau= ght earlier. Seems like a missing in the stage coding requirements. Can't help from here, never tried to sta= ge/maintain a port.=20=20 ***reliability for production***=20=20=20=20=20=