Re: Poutupgrade unsafe
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:51:06 -0300 Henry Lenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A nice portupgrade feature would be to grok UPDATING, and present > > you with any such notes before the upgrade occurs. > > > > Mike > > I fully agree. It's not the best solution to have an UPDATE file that > is very large and that is not integrated in the updating process. > UPDATE should be machine-readable, for starters. > > Henry I do not see a problem. A script updates my port tree every night and the last line of the script is: head -n 50 /usr/ports/UPDATING When I read my mail in the morning with my first cup of coffee...well, I read my mail. Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Poutupgrade unsafe
A nice portupgrade feature would be to grok UPDATING, and present you with any such notes before the upgrade occurs. Mike I fully agree. It's not the best solution to have an UPDATE file that is very large and that is not integrated in the updating process. UPDATE should be machine-readable, for starters. Henry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Poutupgrade unsafe
On 14/09/06 Pete Slagle said: > This one bit me too, but we have only ourselves to blame; there was a > clear (well, pretty clear) warning of the change in /usr/ports/UPDATING. > > You would never forget to check UPDATING before running portupgrade > would you? :) A nice portupgrade feature would be to grok UPDATING, and present you with any such notes before the upgrade occurs. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein pgpOARzLtmwzT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Poutupgrade unsafe
Olivier Nicole wrote: > I know the mistake was on my side, I was not carefull enough when > using portupgrade on a production machine but... > > Yesterday I froze our system for about one hour when I used > portupgrade to upgrade Samba. It was a very minor upgrade (from 3.0.10 > to 3.0.23c,1 I think), but it happens that in between the 2 versions > the location of the password file for Samba has been changed. > > I beleive that the port maintener has a very good reason why to change > this directory, but portupgrade would build and install the new Samba > silently (if the message at the begining of the makefile did ever > show, it was drawn into the flow of portupgrade messages) resulting > the new Samba did not accept any connection. > > I think that such modification should be considered as critical and > portupgrade should stop and request acknowledgement before it keeps on > installing. I am not sure the mechanism exists in portupgrade, but I > see it as a very usefull enhancement. This one bit me too, but we have only ourselves to blame; there was a clear (well, pretty clear) warning of the change in /usr/ports/UPDATING. You would never forget to check UPDATING before running portupgrade would you? :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
