[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Izaac <izaac%setec.org@localhost> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 03:30:29PM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Izaac wrote:
>> pkg_add: Warning: package `thinyoucareabout-3.14.159nb2718' was built for
>> a platform:
>> pkg_add: NetBSD/x86_64 5.1 (pkg) vs. NetBSD/x86_64 5.1.2 (this host)
>> (Why, pray tell, don't we have binary packages that are actually built
>> for the latest release version of the 5.1 branch, i.e. 5.1.2?
> This is my fault but take a note that 5.1 packages are being built on
> 5.1.2, not 5.1 branch.
> The value 5.1 comes from LIBKVER_OSRELEASE variable used by libkver.
> For 2012Q3 I'l set it to 5.1.2. Nevertheless, the real problem is a pkg_add's
> vision on "different archs" and therefore useless warnings.
They are not useless in generally, but they are useless in release
branches. The version checks should ignore minor version differences.
>> Fourth, database integrity. If I had a nickel for every time I've had
>> to pkg_admin rebuild / pkg_admin rebuild-tree because something died
>> along the way.
> No problem in nih, "pkg_admin rebuid" is run automatically if
> something bad happens.
> Also, there is "nih verify" for checking pkgdb integrity.
This is not a solution; it is just a patch that you implemented in
nih. The mere fact that the database can become corrupted during
normal operation (things dying along the way should be an expected and
recoverable condition) is the real issue.
Julio Merino / @jmmv
Main Index |
Thread Index |