On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Don O'Neil said: > Don't assume that just because this is the first time I've raised > concerns about the ports means that this is the first time I've > used FreeBSD.... I've been using FreeBSD since 1.X. > > My point is that it's a pain the rear to do a CVSUP/Buildworld > (takes a long time) so the ports collection is the easiest way to > update/upgrade software. > > It would be nice to have some sort of reference as to how the > original software was built and installed (the build options) or > have the ports be built to match the original to facilitate easy > upgrade of one or two items. I agree that in general these are 'add > on' tools, but there are core functions (bind, ssh, etc...) that > get patched from time to time because of security and it's a LOT > quicker to re-install the port than it is to do a buildworld.
Upgrading the base ports a piece at a time is an excellent way to shoot yourself in the foot. I would install the port, put NO_BIND= true in /etc/make.conf. You can define the executable and files in /etc/rc.conf. AFAIK, most of the base ports can be set up this way. Then, they become independent of the world build and can be maintained with your favorite port tools. I use the port version of bind on my nameserver and have never had any problems with compatibility except when I built it with PORT_REPLACES_BASE_BIND9. That turned out to be a *BAD* idea. Beech > > These are just my observations. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric > Crist Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:10 AM > To: Don O'Neil > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Updating Bind & OpenSSL on 6.1-Stable/Release > > On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Don O'Neil wrote: > > If they are 'ports' specificly built for FreeBSD, shouldn't the > > port maintainer make them install like the originals were? Makes > > sense to me.... > > > > Or maybe the original install/release needs to be changed to > > install the same as the port. > > > > It's a pain having to debug where everything went, change config > > files, update startup scripts, make symlinks, etc... When if it > > were Linux a simple RPM install would update it and I'd be done > > with it. > > > > Just my observations. > > The ports tree installs things to the /usr/local/ prefix, to help > you keep your ports and base system separate. This is a normal > behavior, and has been normal for a lot longer than you have been > using FreeBSD. I apologize, but I doubt the developers are going > to change the standard behavior just because you got confused the > first time you tried to replace a base system component. > > Look here in section 4.5.2.1: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports- > using.html > > ----- > Eric F Crist > Secure Computing Networks > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beech Rintoul - Port Maintainer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
