On 2014/11/09 21:41, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > >I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, > > > > >rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the > > > > >Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that > > > > >files > > > > >like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. > > > > > > > > How much of a catastrophy is this? > > > > > > > > Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to > > > > be 100% useful, or 100% complete? > > > > > > 100% complete should be the goal. > > > > > > I expect a system that is upgraded from 5.5 to 5.6 (following the > > > upgrade documentation) to be in the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 > > > installation, barring changes local to the system. > > > > I disagree. Consider the case of default MTA or default web server. > > I expect the upgrade instructions to show me how to upgrade the system > > keeping it running as before as much as possible. > > > > If I wanted it to work how it does on a clean install, I'd just do a > > clean install... > > The old binaries won't run on the new kernel anyway. When the default
Very often, the old binaries will still run, at least within a couple of releases. There are some special cases where they won't (like the time_t flag day), but they aren't all that frequent, that's why they're called flag days. > has been changed but the old default remains, the upgrade instructions > should say so and say what to do to change the default. You can continue > running the old default if you want. When the old software has been > removed completely, the old binaries are useless anyway. I was answering the specific point about "the _exact_ same state as a clean 5.6 installation" there. There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And some cases where it really doesn't matter (old gcc-lib, site_perl dirs), people who particularly want a cleaned-up system will use find, others won't care. And some like this where it could probably go either way.. > The instructions should be complete, but nobody should ever run who on > a 5.6 system. Therefore you could claim running rwho is undefined, so it > doesn't matter whether it still exists or not. Maybe this isn't such a > good idea if /usr/bin comes before /usr/local/bin in your path. > > -- Martin Brandenburg
