Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Tyler Retzlaff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/25/2005 00:59:03
Maybe something like a make safeupdate target would be acceptable.
It would differ in that it would pkg_tarup all the packages before
removing them and if the update failed put everything back into place.
No I do not know what I'm proposing, nor do I know if it would be
difficult at all it was just a random thought.
On 23/06/2005, at 11:01 AM, Sean Davis wrote:
> Okay, I know I've complained about this before now, and I know
> other people
> have as well. I'm sick of it. What does it take to update a
> package, and not
> have "make update" rape 90 other packages that aren't even remotely
> For example, I wanted to update mplayer. So I did a 'make update' in
> multimedia/mplayer. Guess what? KDE got nuked. And didn't build. So
> I was
> left without it until I rebuilt it from meta-pkgs/kde3 manually.
> What will it take to get the pkgsrc developers to actually fix make
> I'm tired of being told to use pkg_comp: Every time I've used it,
> it can't
> build kdeaddons. Not to mention, why should I have to build a full
> of NetBSD, just to build one single package safely?
> I don't hear these kinds of complaints from FreeBSD users regarding
> portupgrade. I am no FreeBSD fan, but seriously: why is it
> necessary to nuke
> every package before rebuilding? why not build, and IF IT BUILDS,
> then nuke
> and reinstall? That seems to be the saner course of action to me.
> That way
> I'm not left with half the packages I had before because I updated one
> relatively insignifigant package that some weird dependency chain
> linked to
> KDE, and then to everything else.
> I'm tired of it. So: what'll it be? money? hardware? or should I
> just act
> like nothing is wrong with the update target, like the pkgsrc
> developers do?