Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:07:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: Nathan Dorfman <nathan@rtfm.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Upgrading Ports Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980115174558.2120A-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> 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? Generally yes, but... > If so, maybe the packing list should mark some files as ``hard'' that > should stay after a pkg_delete Shared libraries should definately be given such treatment, but the user should be prompted, or at least informed of files that were not removed. When shared libraries are involved, I typically install the new port over the old, or copy the shared library for safekeeping before doing the pkg_delete. Something else that would be nice is to prompt for confirmation about removing files that have been changed since the port was installed, for example config files. This would require recording checksums of all installed files as part of the installation and comparing at removal time. However, an emerging convention for config files is to install them with the extension ".sample" and NOT put the real config files in the PLIST. In the absence of an upgrade mechanism distinct from a plain install, this works reasonably well except that if you really do want to delete the port rather than upgrade, those files should probably go as well. Installation needs to be careful about overwriting config files, but there is nothing new here--porters should have been checking for this case all along. :) -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980115174558.2120A-100000>