On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> In message <41644E92.9050207@anand.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
or something)


  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)


Magnus