Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:04:10 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Nathan Dorfman <nathan@rtfm.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Upgrading Ports Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980115185126.197B-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19980115171427.46891@rtfm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Nathan Dorfman wrote:
> Is pkg_deleting a port and then reinstalling it the best/only way
> to upgrade a port when the software involved has gone up a version?
"best". Files from an old version may potentially become
unnecessary.
> If so, maybe the packing list should mark some files as ``hard'' that
> should stay after a pkg_delete, perhaps if a ``keep hard'' flag has
> been given. For ports that install stuff that should stay across an
> upgrade.
Can you name an example of something that should stay across an
upgrade? Potentially important configuration files should
already be left alone, I believe.
Taking the opposite (but equivalent) of your idea, marking
certain files (or types of files, such as ~/.pkgname for every
user) as "to be deleted on a `hard' delete" is, I believe, a
twisting ugly road that will run over people's feet. If I
pkg_delete perl5, should all the perl5 scripts I've written be
found and deleted?
--
tIM...HOEk
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980115185126.197B-100000>