On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:19:29AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 08:31:15PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>As usual, file(1) has to follow. Anyway, since it works for now, and > >>currently there is no reason to break it, why is it bad? I actually > >>like > >>that feature, and it is useful for debugging ports that should have > >>been > >>recompiled after a system upgrade. > > > >Sounds like you're trying to work around bugs in the Ports Collection, > >please go fix those bugs and use the proper tool for the job. > > Could you please elaborate which bugs you are referring to? The current > file(1) works fine for me in this aspect, so what are better tools for > the job? It appears you're concerned when FreeBSD X.Y comes out, you've got ports compiled on X.(Y-1). This is not a problem, and I'm not sure why you feel it is that you appear to run file(1) across all of /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 and reinstall any binaries you find from X.(Y-1). Since X.Y will run X.(Y-1) binaries just fine I'm not sure why you have this need. portupgrade(8) is the proper tool to refresh all your ports. If you find that X.Y can't run an X.(Y-1) binary then the root cause of that bug should be fixed. I don't see that your method of running file(1) across everything scales well to the typical user. -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Mon Aug 09 2004 - 07:30:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:05 UTC