Author: Dan Langille
Date: 30-12-01 07:10
Rob wrote:
>
> Not all ports should be upgraded this way.. You forget
> that there are ports such as Mysql and apache-ssl and php3
> and php4 that require some level of interactive work to
> upgrade them in the ports collection.
I didn't forget. In fact I used portupgrade to upgrade these very ports. No problems.
> You should before suggesting that people not use an
> interactive portupgrade, suggest that they do not in fact use
> softwares that have at any point been user interactive or
> that require special attention because of ssl keys or
> installation of a database which is not required due to
> previous installation.
I never had any such problem.
> Portupgrade is *NOT* a standard and should not be viewed as
> such simply for the fact that its not intuitive enough to
> know that there is a very real possibility that it could
> screw up a current software installed on the system such as
> what happened with apache-ssl on my system at one point.
What makes you think it is not standard?
> Without realizing it I ended up completely trashing my apache
> server and had to reinstall all configurations and ssl keys
> from a backup.
Accidents do happen. That's why we have backups.
> Before all else people need to be reminded of these things so
> keep it in mind before you go making it sound like you can
> just drop a cron process in and allow portupgrade to do all
> the work without user interation. It truly does make a
> difference with a larger number of ports in the fbsd system.
Ummm, I never mentioned a cron process for upgrading ports. At no time did I mention anything close to that.
Now, where was I wrong?
|
|
