Le 23/09/2014 11:44, Michelle Sullivan a écrit : > Florent Peterschmitt wrote: >> Le 23/09/2014 11:02, Michelle Sullivan a écrit : >> >>> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> >>>> [...] >>>> You are using portupgrade so first upgrade pkg with portupgrade >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Just a thought here - why (like .rpm and .deb - and the reason I hate >>> them so much) are you making the package manager version a dependency of >>> a package? I can understand if there are new features that you may need >>> to use a later version to get those features, but making a package >>> dependent on the package manager rather than displaying a warning that a >>> feature is missing is the brain dead way that plagues upgrades for >>> redhat and debian. Of course if your intent is to make FreeBSD into >>> another Linux distro just with a different kernel, continue. >>> >>> >> >> What is the problem of upgrading the package manager first and then >> upgrade the rest of the world without any problem? >> >> > Not disagreeing with you... but making dependencies like this leads to > everything relying on the package manager being a particular version.. > which in my opinion is wrong... the package manager is not part of the > software you're installing... and shouldn't be part of a dependency tree > - particularly when building your own ports.
This makes sense. > *Every* time a Redhat and Debian system screwed up that I have had, was > caused by the package manager needing to be updated before a particular > package, then all the other dependent packages needed to be upgraded, > and the libraries and you end up with the catch 22 of the package > manager can't be installed because the package manager is too old and > you end up with a half working system that needs to be re-installed > because you needed to apply a security fix to a perl module....! Now > FreeBSD has one advantage (currently) ... the package manager is not > part of the OS, it in itself is a port.. however that has half changed > already and in what, another month? it's going to be part of the OS... Yes but it doesn't manage the system, only port packages. > Yeah sure keep building pkg-static so it can be installed independently, > but be aware that one does not want to get into dependency loops or > having to upgrade everything just for one security fix - particularly > when working with the ports tree and not the package manager... some > people have production servers that need a security fix, not an upgrade > of everything. > I'm curious to know how you get into this mess with Debian or RH distros. What version of these distros? And are you sure it is impossible to uprade only the PM (package manager) and keep other packages like they currently are? Never had to reinstall a system for a security upgrade because of dependency loop. Sounds very strange to me.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
