Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > Sigh... there should be a file listing incompatible files that is part of > the source tree. Every file in this list would be deleted as a pre-install > step. Perl would not have been in this list because it was not > incompatible. But the old C++ headers clearly wer

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Wednesday 09 October 2002 17:00, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > > And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails about the > > GCC being broken when the old headers just needed to be deleted. > > No, it wouldn't. > > The same people who failed to read the mailing

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On (2002/10/09 22:03), Terry Lambert wrote: > > The other problem with an mtree.obsolete is that it assumes > > the the upgrade process completes successfully. This doesn't > > mean that it completes without an error in the upgrade process, > > it means that the resulting s

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On (2002/10/09 22:03), Terry Lambert wrote: > The other problem with an mtree.obsolete is that it assumes > the the upgrade process completes successfully. This doesn't > mean that it completes without an error in the upgrade process, > it means that the resulting system functions. Why not just

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : "M. Warner Losh" wrote: : > In message: : > Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > : I think most of us realize that we need a solution which can b

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

"M. Warner Losh" wrote: > In message: > Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : I think most of us realize that we need a solution which can be > : automatically executed as part of every installworld or mergemaster > : run. The debate

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message: Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : I think most of us realize that we need a solution which can be : automatically executed as part of every installworld or mergemaster : run. The debate is over the most reasonable metho

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

At 2:00 PM -0700 10/9/02, Terry Lambert wrote: >"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > > And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails > > about the GCC being broken when the old headers just needed > > to be deleted. > >No, it wouldn't. > >The same people who failed to read the mailing list,

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Garance A Drosihn writes: >>We could add 'rm -rf /usr/include/*' at a suitable point inside >>the installworld target. > >Installers should not be blindly removing entire directory structures. The only things that live under /usr/include are those owned by the system's install target, therefore

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

At 3:09 PM -0600 10/9/02, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Danny> And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails > Danny> about the GCC being broken when the old headers just needed > Danny> to be deleted. > >We could add 'rm -rf /usr/include/*' at a suitable point inside >the ins

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Danny> And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails Danny> about the GCC being broken when the old headers just needed Danny> to be deleted. We could add 'rm -rf /usr/include/*' at a suitable point inside the installworld target. --lyndon To Unsubscribe: send mail to [

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > And a list of files to delete would have saved many emails about the > GCC being broken when the old headers just needed to be deleted. No, it wouldn't. The same people who failed to read the mailing list, and see the first time the problem came up, and was solved, wou

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Monday 07 October 2002 21:05, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : On 2002-10-07 15:14, Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > : > Anything that gets overwritten during the normal install process > : > is al

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

> "M" == M Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: M> I think that we need a mtree.obsolete that goes through and M> deletes these sorts of things as part of installworld/upgrade M> scripts. No solution like this will ever work for everyone, or in every situation. For example, yo

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:35:39AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 20:07:37 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > > I'd prefer this as a job for mergemaster, asking you confirmation > > for each binary. > > I'd much

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

I wrote: >> >> I understand what the topic is. I don't understand your comment, "I'd >> be inclined just to remove all files in those directories which are older >> than some file in the build tree--*after* a successful >> installation." > > Ah, sorry, that might bear more explanation. > > > "i

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

At 11:31 AM +0930 10/8/02, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > "install -C" doesn't change the timestamp, so you'll have tons of >> files that are older than "some file in the build tree". > >What does the last access timestamp look like after install -C? What does the last-access timestamp look lik

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 18:46:35 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:34:42AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 17:44:42 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:16:10AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Monday, 7 Oc

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:34:42AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 17:44:42 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:16:10AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 11:20:56 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >>> In message

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 21:18:10 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 20:07:37 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >>> I think we can greatly simplify things with one fi

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 20:07:37 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > >> I think we can greatly simplify things with one firm but relatively > >> bearable rule: > >> > >> The directories /bin,

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:34:42AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > What would you do about "install -C"? > > I think it confuses the issue rather than solving it. We're talking > about removing binaries which are no longer needed, not replacing > binaries that are needed. install -C will

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : On 2002-10-07 15:14, Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > Anything that gets overwritten during the normal install process : > is already taken care of. We're just trying to get rid of files : > whic

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 20:07:37 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> I think we can greatly simplify things with one firm but relatively >> bearable rule: >> >> The directories /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, > here> are for the exclusive

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 17:44:42 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:16:10AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 11:20:56 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: >>> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Archie Cobbs wrote: > You are right in that additional programs or custom modifications > that depend on the obsolete stuff would break if the obsolete stuff > were removed... so you'd have to confirm everything with mergemaster. > Possibly this is too dangerous to be useful. > > But it would be

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:16:10AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 11:20:56 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CU

Re: Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 11:20:56 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is >

Removing old binaries (was: Do we still need portmap(8)?)

On Monday, 7 October 2002 at 11:20:56 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is >> it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At t

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On 2002-10-07 15:14, Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anything that gets overwritten during the normal install process > is already taken care of. We're just trying to get rid of files > which are not installed by 'make installword' but used to be once. > > I.e., if a file is not install

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Terry Lambert writes: > > I.e., if a file is not installed by 'make installworld' then by > > definition it's not required for a correctly functioning system. > > This won't work for Perl (which is why I picked it as my example). > > In order to do what you are suggesting, you will need to creat

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : I.e., if a file is not installed by 'make installworld' then by : definition it's not required for a correctly functioning system. The only exceptions to this rule would be if something was once in the system,

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Archie Cobbs wrote: > > How will this work for "perl", which is not removed, but is instead > > replaced with a stub shell script? > > Anything that gets overwritten during the normal install process > is already taken care of. We're just trying to get rid of files > which are not installed by 'm

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Terry Lambert writes: > > > : It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is > > > : it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, > > > : the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to run NFS. > > > > > > I think that we need a mtree.obso

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Archie Cobbs wrote: > M. Warner Losh writes: > > : It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is > > : it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, > > : the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to run NFS. > > > > I think that we need

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Daniel Flickinger wrote: > >Name: text >textType: Plain Text (text/plain) >Encoding: 7bit As an EMACS afficionado, perhaps I can get you to fix AtillaMail? Right now, even without attachments other than the message body, it adds: Content-Type: text/plain; ch

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

"Joel M. Baldwin" wrote: > Shouldn't ALL of the files in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/include, /usr/lib > etc be replaced during an installworld? They are replaced... if they exist boith before and afterward. They are also created... if they did not exist before, but do exist afterward. What's not done

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is > : it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, > : the man page should stop claiming that it's nec

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

M. Warner Losh writes: > : It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is > : it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, > : the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to run NFS. > > I think that we need a mtree.obsolete that goes thr

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is : it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, : the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:32:10AM -0700, Joel M. Baldwin wrote: > > Shouldn't ALL of the files in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/include, /usr/lib > etc be replaced during an installworld? > It depends. If you have INSTALL='install -C" in /etc/make.conf, then some (or even all) of the files in the name

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Joel M. Baldwin wrote: > Shouldn't ALL of the files in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/include, /usr/lib etc > be replaced during an installworld? > > I've always looked for files older than the last installworld and moved > them aside thinking that they're obsolete. > > ( aside, no

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

Shouldn't ALL of the files in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/include, /usr/lib etc be replaced during an installworld? I've always looked for files older than the last installworld and moved them aside thinking that they're obsolete. ( aside, not delete, just in case ) --On Monday, October 07, 2002 8:51

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" writes: >On Sunday, 6 October 2002 at 23:42:55 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:02:51PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >>> It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is >>> it still needed,

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Sunday, 6 October 2002 at 23:42:55 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:02:51PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is >> it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, >> the man pa

Re: Do we still need portmap(8)?

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:02:51PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is > it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, > the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to run NFS. Are you saying

Do we still need portmap(8)?

It's been a while since we've used portmap(8) on -CURRENT systems. Is it still needed, or can it be removed completely? At the very least, the man page should stop claiming that it's necessary to run NFS. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [