Subject: Re: Changing order of update process
To: Thomas Klausner <email@example.com>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@NetBSD.org>
Date: 12/25/2002 10:05:09
On Tuesday 24 December 2002 09:25, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 08:29:24AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > deinstall --> build --> install
> > to
> > build --> deinstall --> install
> The problem with this was (before buildlink2) that some packages
> found their own headers of the installed old version and then had
> trouble building -- I guess this is much better now _with_ buildlink2,
> but since USE_BUILDLINK2 is not the default for all packages (yet?)
> we are not ready to switch the order yet.
I guess I'm a little dense this Xmas morning but I don't understand why that
has any bearing on the order within the package. Sure, if there is a
dependency then you pop over to the dependent packages recursively and do
those in the same order. You still don't have to delete anything until you
are ready to install. The worst case is that the dependent package gets
built and installed and the one you are building fails and leaves the old one
in the system. That can't be any worse than losing the package altogether
and will often still work.
Or are those visions of sugar plums still dancing in my head?
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <firstname.lastname@example.org>