Subject: Re: Package update disaster
To: None <netbsd-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Magnus Eriksson <email@example.com>
Date: 10/06/2004 23:50:04
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <41644E92.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Anand Buddhdev writes:
> >And anyway, why does "make update" FIRST remove the old package? Would
> >it not make sense to first build the new package(s), and if all the
> >builds succeed, then to proceed with deleting the old packages and
> >replacing them with new ones? That makes for a very small package
> >unavailability window.
> It's a serious problem; I don't see a great way around it. "Compile
> first" works for leaf nodes; it doesn't work when there are library
> dependencies involved.
..without a lot of work. (You could build on another machine and pkg_add
I agree completely with Anand that there should be warnings (and maybe
some short instructions) instead of going ahead with a recursive update.
It happened to me, and I'm now using pkg_delete with -n and then -f
instead of any recommended method. Yes, I know this will probably break
things even more in the long run.
What the DragonFly people are doing seems interesting, even if I don't
really get exactly how it's supposed to work. Of course, back on AmigaOS,
things just worked. :-)
(I guess it corrupted me; I can't seem to see why dependencies need to be
such a big problem)