Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 21:36:28 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 'pkg upgrade -f spamassassin' stops but doesn't restart spamd Message-ID: <5A5284CC.9050400@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <5A524855.2040901@grosbein.net> References: <76627A89-D7E9-4010-910B-5F25886E7E7E@ellael.org> <5A523873.2050001@quip.cz> <5A524855.2040901@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein wrote on 2018/01/07 17:18: > 07.01.2018 22:10, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >>> I am following 11-STABLE and therefore upgrading my system quite frequently. During that process I do recompile all ports installed by poudriere and upgrade all ports after reboot. >> There are no consensus about what services should do on deinstall or upgrade. That's why there is such a mess in ports / packages. >> Some did nothing (my preferred way), some stop (but did not start) the service, >> some modify user edited config files (removing / disabling modules in httpd.conf so Apache is broken on each upgrade of module(s)). > > There IS consensus on modifying config files while upgrade and it is written in our Porter's Handbook: > only unmodified files may be changes with upgrade. Any other behaviour is a bug that should be fixed. If it is that simple then tell me how it is possible that for many years there are repetitive discussions and many ports with many commits violating this "rule"? If it is written somewhere how any committer can allow ports with those problems? For example: "requesting policy for Apache module installation (LoadModule manipulation)" https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2017-October/110725.html Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A5284CC.9050400>