Subject: Re: should "make update" check for new version first?
To: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
From: Roman Kennke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/18/2004 21:42:49
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:32:00 +0100
Alistair Crooks <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Dick Davies
> > * Ronald van der Pol <Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org> [1047
> > [snip discussion - though a big 'me too' on the 'build
> new then remove old'
> > issue ]
> > > I have heard horror stories about that one too.
> > It bites your hand off in a few edge cases, but it's
> still a lot
> > better than make update.
> > I'm not trolling, just try them both and see.
> Another viewpoint is to set up a sandbox, and to build
> all the
> packages you want in that sandbox. Then, when you know
> everything has been built to your satisfaction, you can
> cut over your
That sounds like a clean and safe method. Should be
advertised more publicly in manuals and the like. But --
doesn't this mean, I have to (re-)build the whole tree? Is
there a manual/tutorial for this kind of stuff?