Subject: Re: make update - wrong order?
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <email@example.com>
Date: 10/03/2005 16:01:43
-On [20051003 15:39], Julio M. Merino Vidal (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>Yes, but Jeroen's approach could maximize package availability. Of course,
>once you have updated the lowest package in the dependency chain, you
>cannot warrant that all the other ones will work until you've rebuilt them,
>but they will be fine in most cases.
>OTOH, what Jeroen proposes could be "easily" implemented by writing a
>little script and using make replace (which is intended to do what he
>wants, given that the package has to be updated while others need it).
Mmm, so I missed out on 'replace'.
Need to give that a spin. I can just understand the frustration of users
about a system where only firefox might be outdated and the user goes about
'update'ing it and watches the package get deinstalled first so that you
loose browsing graphically whilst firefox compiles (and we all know it is
not the fastest compilation).
And yes, most software remains the same stability wise. Otherwise
portupgrade on FreeBSD would never have worked (as well) as it does (leaving
aside aesthetically and technologically correctness aside).
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://www.andf.info/
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/ | email@example.com
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong...