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

> In message <Pine.NEB.4.61.0410070022150.251@irina.net.flo>, Florian Stoehr writ
> es:
>
>>
>> Is there a perhaps simpler way to tell pkgsrc:
>> "bring-EVERYTHING-up-to-date-and-don't-ask-for-further-input" ?
>>
>> "make update world"-like?
>>
>
> There is, but it's a bit complex.  Here's a posting from Wolfgang S.
> Rupprecht on 31 May 2004:
>
>
> ---
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:01:45 -0700
> To: port-i386@NetBSD.org
> From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang+gnus20040531T202330@dailyplanet.dontspam
> .wsrcc.com>
> Subject: Re: pkgsrc and already installed binary pkgs
>
>
>> No, it's not great.  But there aren't great solutions here, unless
>> there's a thorough archive of many different versions of many packages.
>> And it's even worse than I've just outlined, since you'll often find
>> that something doesn't rebuild properly.
>
> I've been looking at how some of the other BSD's handle this, and
> pkgsrc (especially when augmented with pkgdepgraph and pkg_chk) is way
> above the competition.
>
> I found that updating the pkgsrc tree to -current and then using
> "lintpkgsrc -i" to find the out of date pkgs and updating with
> pkgdepgraph is the least painful way to go.  Pain is relative though
> and if something fundamental like png changes, expect 10-20 hours of
> an unusable system with only the core non-pkgs utilities.
>
>    set -e
>    cd /usr/pkgsrc
>    cvs -dAP
>    lintpkgsrc -omr
>    lintpkgsrc -i > pkgdepgraph.in
>    pkgdepgraph -D pkgdepgraph.in > delete_order
>    pkgdepgraph -R pkgdepgraph.in > rebuild.sh
>    pkgdepgraph -F pkgdepgraph.in > fetch.sh
>    sh fetch.sh && mv fetch.sh fetch.sh~
>    pkg_delete `cat delete_order` && mv delete_order delete_order~
>    sh rebuild.sh
>    /bin/rm -f pkgdepgraph.in delete_order~ rebuild.sh fetch.sh~
>
> Now on bad days, I may need to find what didn't rebuild, comment out
> the broken build on rebuild.sh and rerun that by hand.  Still it beats
> rebuilding it all by hand.
>
>
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

Uh!

On a this-is-simple scale ranging from "1" to "10", this is a "12" :-(

Hm ... maybe we should think about a mechanism for this, maybe also for a 
binary package updater? Just a though.

-Florian