[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/mk/flavor/pkg
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 08:13:43PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> (I would agree that on a production system with a professional sysadmin,
> prebuilding packages is the right answer. But on a personal machine
> where short-term breakage only inconveniences the person doing the
> update work, pkg_rr is a win.)
I'm not sure; I think that depends heavily on circumstances, what the
production machine does, and what happens if it breaks. E.g. on a
department mail server, a five minute downtime on a Saturday night to
rebuild and reinstall spamassassin isn't going to cause a problem; if
it fails partway through, you undo-replace.
Doing a full steam_roller during a scheduled downtime of a production
machine (especially, doing it blindly) is probably unwise, but that's
a different matter from doing a series of preplanned replaces.
oh, and btw, "make update" does have some bugs.
> So, the incremental fix to (2) seems pretty clear:
> add a flag to pkg_add so that one can do "pkg_add -U" but override the
> check (turn it into a warning) that fails the update when there's a
> depending package with a dependency not satisfied by the new package.
> Essentially -f, but only for that check. This could be either
> -U --no-strict-dependencies
> or it could be
> which means the same thing. And of course have make replace use it.
> What do people think about that?
That makes far too much sense... :-)
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |