> On 02 June 2012 PM 9:50:22 Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > The point he made was actually not a matter of people not reading
> > > UPDATING but that UPDATING is oftentimes not updated until after
> > > the disruptive/potentially dangerous change has already hit the
> > > ports tree.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the solution is for the end user.
> > We have our reference hosts, do daily portupgrades and on those days
> > where all looks fine, pkg_create the whole collection and
> > to production hosts.
> > Still not perfect, but 'good enough'.
> isn't this what I just suggested to be done by the team? Give the ports
> tree a new version number and people can fall back to this then.
> Isn't this solution too simple to be done?
In my some previous messages in other threads I mentioned a requirement to
have a list of files prepared in context of ports and also for base system
. When a part is broken even in a very simple part , neither "make" nor
package managers are able to repair it , because there is no a list of
files to check what is present and what is missing .
This problem is solved by Kurt Jaeger and possibly by others by maintaining
a reference host means to dedicate a computer for this task which is not
necessary if such lists are prepared during development of base and ports .
For each person , to use such a reference host is not a possibility .
In last weeks , during my FreeBSD 9.0 amd64 Release installation , I have
scratched my installation due to a wrongly set parameter . I could not
understand what is become corrupted , neither "make" could correct it nor
port master or port upgrade or package add . Only it has been cured by
installing another operating system onto it . From that point of view ,
FreeBSD is really a very fragile system .