Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:21:23 -0800 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [RFC] make upgrade target for bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20010208182123.I8780@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <200102082347.f18NlgO12046@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>; from bmah@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:47:42PM -0800 References: <200102082347.f18NlgO12046@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:47:42PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If someone finds this idea fatally flawed, that's fine too.
This will fail if the new port includes a bump in a shared library
version.
The idea is implemented in the wrong place. This needs to be done by
pkg_add (which bsd.port.mk should be using). In pkg_add you can
determine if the port should upgrade an existing port automatically -
the easiest and most reliable mechanism being a conflict in installed
files:
If the files we plan on installing overwrite files installed by
(an)other port(s), then we need to upgraded that port/those ports,
regardless of the origin. Even if we don't conflict, we need to upgrade
any port with the same origin as us. (We also need a flag to force X to
upgrade Y). If the port's base names not match, then most likely we
have a real problem, and we should only install with a force flag, and
only do manual upgrades.
During the upgrade, we need to save any shared libraries installed by
the upgraded port(s).
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010208182123.I8780>