Subject: Re: should "make update" check for new version first?
To: Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org>
From: Roman Kennke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/18/2004 16:35:49
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:01:27 +0200
Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> wrote:
> It had to happen one time :-) I saw the vulnerability
> report about
> tiff and did a "make update" in graphics/tiff. Tiff was
> but no new version was installed because the package was
> marked as
> OK, it is easily fixed, but I wonder why "make update"
> does not check
> if there really is a new version of the package that is
> being updated?
I also read the recent discussion about the 'make update
hell'. I also encounter this kind of problem: sometimes
while fetching distfiles, I get stalled connections. This
forces me to interrupt with CTRL+C, which then leaves me
with deinstalled packages here and there.
I wonder what is the problem with changing the order in
which things are done. At the moment it seems: 1. delete
all to-be-upgraded packages, 2. fetch distfiles, 3. build,
4. reinstall packages or similar. This could be changed to:
1. fetch fistfiles and build, 2. deinstall package 3.
reinstall new package. Or am I missing something here? At
least this would help alot.
Another 'solution' comes to mind, a helper tool similar to
portupgrade in FreeBSD.
Only my 2 cents.