Jud wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:21:13 -0400, "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> Jud wrote:
>> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:04:39 -0400, Robert H. Perry
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Unless there is a specific reason not to do so, cvsup and make world
>> > would seem to be an easier and altogether better way to go for an
>> > upgrade from
>> > one minor version number to the next.  Many users do this quite
>> > routinely
>> > (e.g., I do it once every week or two).  See <URL:
>> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cutting-edge.html#CUTTING-EDGE-SYNOPSIS>.
>> > While this section of the Handbook talks about the "cutting edge"
>> > development branches, -CURRENT and -STABLE, the same process can be
>> > used to upgrade to a -RELEASE.
>> Do you find it impossible to install binary packages after such an
>> update?
>> Do you have to use ports after such an update?
>> I could never get packages to install properly after cvsuping my source.
>> I'm wondering if this is somehow by design, or if I did something
>> wrong... ?
> Last question first: IIRC, you were a bit confused regarding ports vs.
> packages, so the reason for failure of packages (or perhaps it was
> ports?) to install properly may be as simple as typing commands meant for
> ports when you really wanted to install a package, or vice versa.

No. I wasn't confused about ports vs. packages. I was confused in that
I thought the port cvsup had caused my problem. I've since discovered
that it was the system source cvsup (to fix a security vulnerability)
that caused my problems. I've updated ports on my laptop and I can
still download and install package just fine.

However, I'm sure that if I updated to -CURRENT I would no longer be able
to install packages.


> If you cvsup the -CURRENT or 5.x base system sources and make world, then
> packages expecting a 4.x base system won't install properly.  However
> (again, IIRC), Mr. Perry was contemplating an update from 4.7 to 4.8, so
> packages built for 4.x should install fine.

OK. That's what I thought.

It's a shame that FreeBSD doesn't provide some sort of system to allow
the use of packages with (at the very least) -STABLE.

As an administrator, I find myself often torn between updating my system
sources from -RELEASE to fix a security vulnerability (and thus give up my
ability to install binary packages), and simply recompiling the effected
program or library (and any linked programs that depend on it) by hand
so I can still install binary packages.

Is the ports/packages system actively maintained by anyone? If so, the
above might be something to think about. For security updates, each
effected package would have to be recompiled with the appropriate fix
and somehow become the default choice (overriding the vulnerable package)
for systems with a compatible bug fix level.

Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v)  423-559-5145 (f)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to