Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:05:56AM +0200, Benny Siegert wrote: >> Would it be possible to have „make package-install“ just use the -u >> option to pkg_add? This would do the right thing in this case. The >> param is harmless if no older version is installed. > > That's effectively what make replace did for a long time, until some > people insisted that pkg_tarup must be run again. (Ignoring the fact that having package-install behave like replace if a package is installed and what replace should do are separate issues.) I'm not sure who "some people" are, or when this was. My memory is that when I first became aware of make replace (2004? 2005?), it was calling pkg_tarup, and the point was to have a binary package of the previous package so that one could roll back if the new build/install failed. Now, with DESTDIR, the old package is not removed until a binary package of the new version has been successfully created. So, I think the pkg_tarup has outlived its usefulness, and we should just unconditionally drop the pkg_tarup line. Or given that we are close to freeze, comment it out, and say on 11/1 if no issues remove the line and the associated undo-replace targets. Note that one can run pkg_tarup manually, or run a script that creates binary packages for all installed packages that don't have them, etc. Does anyone who uses make replace find the current pkg_tarup invocation useful, and if so would be they be troubled by removing it?
Description: PGP signature