On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:34:08PM +0200, Renaud Allard wrote: > > > On 10/11/22 13:10, bug wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:17:32AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > It's been explained a few times that being up-to-date is not an error. > > > It's a good thing, and no action is neccessary when up-to-date. > > > > > > Any non-zero value indicates an error, that would include 2. You are > > > marking this as an error, when it isn't. > > > > It's been said that being up-to-date is not an error, but if it's been > > explained, I've failed to find an explanation. > > It didn't fail, your system is up-to-date as requested. So, it's successful. > > > > > Usually, when a utility fails to perform its intended task, it gives an > > error. This includes when the task is not necessary, e.g. using rm to > > remove a file which doesn't exist, using mkdir to make a directory which > > already exists, or using gzip to compress a file that wouldn't benefit > > from compression (unless you tell it to do so anyway, of course). > > > > I'm not an expert on sysupgrade, but it seems to me like it could in > > fact fail incorrectly if one's system is pointed to a mirror that, for > > whatever reason, is itself outdated. In a macabre sense, this is > > inevitable if one maintains an older copy of OpenBSD that outlives > > OpenBSD itself, as URLs are not permanent. > > And how is it supposed to know your mirror is out of date? Giving an error > there won't help as if your mirror is outdated, it will also tell you that > your system is up to date as of this mirror. > Besides, for some testing purposes, you might need an outdated repo. > > > > > Given all this, I don't understand why it's a "good thing" if sysupgrade > > decides partway through that it doesn't need to do anything after all. > > It did things, it verified your system was up-to-date as you asked. > > > > > I don't personally care what exit code it throws, I only use the tool > > manually, I'd just like to know the rationale if anyone cares to > > elaborate. > >
After reading the script, I'd nitpick that it merely advances the version by one step rather than ensures the system is up-to-date, but I suppose one could then argue that somehow advancing beyond the latest version would be incorrect (nevermind impossible), thus leaving "doing nothing" as the only correct action. In any case, thank you for the explanation!
