Re: lang/perl5.36: update procedure written in UPDATING is not enough
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:49:51 +0200 (CEST) free...@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) wrote: > Tatsuki Makino wrote on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:39:27 +0200 (CEST): > > The default version of perl has been switched, have you been able to keep > > up? :) > > Updating according to the procedure written in UPDATING is sufficient to > > avoid the trouble of not finding the library when perl is executed. > > However, it has not moved the files installed according to the old version > > number. > > Indeed 20181213 is incomplete; I usually run something like > > portupgrade -f `pkg query %ro-%rv lang/perl5.28` > > instead of the pkg shlib example. > > Kind regards > Helge Usually, I run `portupgrade -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' -f p5-\*` between the 2 steps for portupgade. In addition, add " -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes'" for the last step. Addig this option avoids fallouts because of "marked as vulnerable". To be more paranoids, run it without " -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes'", and with " -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' -n" to find fallouts, and then confirm they are really needed, deinstall now-unneeded ones, finally run with " -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes'" for vulnerable but really needed ones. And I think `pkg shlib` method is better, as `pkg query` method can cause fallouts by missing explicit dependencies. Not 100% sure, though, but IIRC, when the `pkg shlib` method is first introduced in UPDATING, I tried legacy method first and `pkg shlib` method next, and some more fallouts was rebuilt. -- Tomoaki AOKI
Re: lang/perl5.36: update procedure written in UPDATING is not enough
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 12:41:23 +0200 (CEST)
free...@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) wrote:
> Tomoaki AOKI wrote on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 09:23:15 +0200 (CEST):
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
> > free...@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) wrote:
> >
> > > Tatsuki Makino wrote on Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:39:27 +0200 (CEST):
> > > > The default version of perl has been switched, have you been able to
> > > > keep up? :)
> > > > Updating according to the procedure written in UPDATING is sufficient
> > > > to avoid the trouble of not finding the library when perl is executed.
> > > > However, it has not moved the files installed according to the old
> > > > version number.
> > >
> > > Indeed 20181213 is incomplete; I usually run something like
> > >
> > > portupgrade -f `pkg query %ro-%rv lang/perl5.28`
> > >
> > > instead of the pkg shlib example.
> > >
> > Usually, I run `portupgrade -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' -f p5-\*`
> > between the 2 steps for portupgade.
>
> That would miss dependencies not starting with p5-, for example example
> net/wakeonlan (not seen by pkg shlib either). In fact this installs into
> site_perl/mach/${PERL_VER} so there would be leftovers from the previous
> ${PERL_VER} during upgrade.
>
> Kind regards
> Helge
Of course, p5-\* aline is insufficient. What I noted is, in detail,
First, add to /etc/make.conf:
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= perl5=5.28
Portupgrade users:
portupgrade -o lang/perl5.36 -f lang/perl5.34
You can now remove the DEFAULT_VERSIONS line added earlier
from /etc/make.conf
Update everything starting with "p5-".
portupgrade -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' -f p5-\*
Then you will need to rebuild everything that uses
libperl.so, you can do so with:
portupgrade -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' \
-f `pkg shlib -qR libperl.so.5.34`
Formerl, I did what you mentioned instead of the last one.
But earlier than that, I did much more overkill lile below.
portupgrade -m 'DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES=yes' -r \
-x '>=lang/perl5.36' -f lang/perl5.36
--
Tomoaki AOKI
HEADS-UP: About www/midori browser (XFCE related)
Hi all, As you may have noticed there is a new version of the Midori browser. This new version is an almost complete rewrite based on Gecko (it really looks like a fork of Firefox LTS, looking at the new source code), published by a new entity that acquired the project some time ago. [1] [2] I asked on the XFCE mailing list if there still was any connection between XFCE and the Midori project and they confirmed there is no such relation anymore [3] (this was already clear from the wikipedia page, but I wanted some confirmation). Based on this I am planning to put the port back i the pull of unmaintained ports, removing it from under the XFCE hat. If there are objections please state them in a reply. I'll also give a shot at a final update to a current version before removing it from xfce@ maintainership. But since this is a complete rewrite using gecko, it looks like a difficult update and I am not sure I can succeed by myself. Thanks in advance for any feedback! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(web_browser) [2] https://astian.org/midori-browser/ [3] https://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce/2023-October/038165.html P.S. the new project maintainers still state that this is a "lightweight browser". Considering that it is based on Gecko, and that, in the current time frame, "light weight" is not really an option for a standard compliant browser, I'd really think they should drop that from the description. But, since they use it, in my attempt to update the port I will keep such wording in pkg-descr, although I tend to mildly disagree. -- Guido Falsi
Re: lang/perl5.36: update procedure written in UPDATING is not enough
Helge Oldach wrote on 2023/10/21 14:49: > portupgrade -f `pkg query %ro-%rv lang/perl5.28` In the case of portmaster, it is portmaster -r perl5- . Reinstalling everything listed in `pkg info -q -r perl5` like this is overkill. Perhaps that is why the method that used to be "portmaster -r perl5-" (20141126) is now using "portmaster -f `pkg shlib -qR libperl.so.5.26`". Most of *.pm files installed in /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.36/ use DynaLoader, so most ports that install it have a library linked to libperl.so.5.36. So, those ports are targeted for updating as per the procedure. Ports that are not targeted for updating in this procedure, but need to be reinstalled, seem to create a file named .packlist in /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.36/ directory. Port like p5-Text-CSV-2.03 (textproc/p5-Text-CSV) is such ports. Reinstalling all p5-* ports is slight but overkill. Port like p5-SGMLSpm-1.03_2 (textproc/p5-SGMLSpm) is such ports. It doesn't seem to have a file that involves the old version number. The only reason it doesn't have a .packlist could be because it hasn't been reinstalled in a long time :) Since perl scripts are byte-compiled and then executed, there should be no problem if a file in a running script is replaced. The new file will be used from the next run. Regards.
Re: lang/perl5.36: update procedure written in UPDATING is not enough
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 5:10 PM Tatsuki Makino wrote: > Helge Oldach wrote on 2023/10/21 14:49: > > portupgrade -f `pkg query %ro-%rv lang/perl5.28` > > In the case of portmaster, it is portmaster -r perl5- . > Reinstalling everything listed in `pkg info -q -r perl5` like this is > overkill. > Perhaps that is why the method that used to be "portmaster -r perl5-" > (20141126) is now using "portmaster -f `pkg shlib -qR libperl.so.5.26`". > > Most of *.pm files installed in /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.36/ > use DynaLoader, so most ports that install it have a library linked to > libperl.so.5.36. > So, those ports are targeted for updating as per the procedure. > > Ports that are not targeted for updating in this procedure, but need to be > reinstalled, seem to create a file named .packlist in > /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.36/ directory. > Port like p5-Text-CSV-2.03 (textproc/p5-Text-CSV) is such ports. > > Reinstalling all p5-* ports is slight but overkill. > Port like p5-SGMLSpm-1.03_2 (textproc/p5-SGMLSpm) is such ports. > It doesn't seem to have a file that involves the old version number. > The only reason it doesn't have a .packlist could be because it hasn't > been reinstalled in a long time :) > > Since perl scripts are byte-compiled and then executed, there should be no > problem if a file in a running script is replaced. > The new file will be used from the next run. > > Regards. > I think portmaster has a bug. As per the man page, the behavior of '-f' matches the behavior of '-R -f". Actually, I'm unclear on what the purpose '-f' is. If you run portmaster with no options on a port that is up to date, it still reinstalls it and has for a very long time, maybe always. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
