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 17:23:15
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:47:36 +0200
Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 16:35:49 +0200, Roman Kennke
> > I wonder what is the problem with changing the order in
> > which things are done. At the moment it seems: 1.
> > all to-be-upgraded packages, 2. fetch distfiles, 3.
> > 4. reinstall packages or similar. This could be changed
> > 1. fetch fistfiles and build, 2. deinstall package 3.
> > reinstall new package. Or am I missing something here?
> > least this would help alot.
> I would do this check first:
> 0. does this package have a new version?
> 1. fetch distfiles
> sounds like a good idea.
> I think the conclusion about "build, 2. deinstall" was
> that this
> is only possible for the "leaf" package, not for
why? Maybe I am naive, but assume you have 3 packages X, Y
and Z, where Z depends on X and Y. make update for Z could
then: build, deinstall & reinstall package X, build
deinstall & reinstall Y and then build deinstall &
reinstall Z. Where is the problem with this? IMO this would
avoid most problems with make update. Say, if build Y
fails, then we would have a new version of X installed and
old versions of both Y and Z installed. Maybe this leads to
some slight inconsitencies, but still better then having
everything deinstalled. I know, this is not a problem with
3 packages, but think of a whole tree of packages.