Bug 72547

Comment 1 Edwin Groothuis 2004-10-12 04:04:27 UTC

Maintainer,
Please approve or reject this update:
    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/72547

Edwin

-- 
Edwin Groothuis
edwin@freebsd.org
http://www.mavetju.org

I don't object to the change itself to upgrade the port, however I
have concerns that upgrading the port will break people's twiki
installation - because of the nature of the twiki system, a fairly
manual upgrade procedure is needed.

See
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiDocumentation#TWiki_Upgrade_Guide
for details on the complexities involved.

This is my only concern - if automated software upgrades causing
potential data loss are the users concern, then this change can go
ahead.

Also, thanks to Lars for taking the time to do the patch.

	- Justin

-- 
Justin Hawkins | justin@hawkins.id.au
               | http://hawkins.id.au

Justin Hawkins wrote:
> I don't object to the change itself to upgrade the port, however I
> have concerns that upgrading the port will break people's twiki
> installation - because of the nature of the twiki system, a fairly
> manual upgrade procedure is needed.
> 
> See
> http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiDocumentation#TWiki_Upgrade_Guide
> for details on the complexities involved.
> 
> This is my only concern - if automated software upgrades causing
> potential data loss are the users concern, then this change can go
> ahead.

Very true, as I found out the hard way. Do you have experience with the 
"upgrade" script that comes with the tarball? I wonder if that could be 
integrated into "make install."

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:

> Very true, as I found out the hard way. Do you have experience with the 
> "upgrade" script that comes with the tarball? I wonder if that could be 
> integrated into "make install."

No I don't - I will investigate and see if it can be feasibly
integrated.

	- Justin

-- 
Justin Hawkins | justin@hawkins.id.au
               | http://hawkins.id.au

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:26:06AM +0930, Justin Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
> > Very true, as I found out the hard way. Do you have experience with the 
> > "upgrade" script that comes with the tarball? I wonder if that could be 
> > integrated into "make install."
> 
> No I don't - I will investigate and see if it can be feasibly
> integrated.

Yuck - both the manual and the automated upgrade procedures are awful
and pretty un-automatable from a ports perspective.

I'm not seeing a lot of choice here but to flag to the user that an upgrade
requires some manual intervention. 

I can't even see a clean path for the manual upgrade, without screwing
up FreeBSD's ports idea of the world (MD5's and so on).

I'll take a look at the postgres port and see if I can do something like it 
does, regarding a warning about existing installations before install.

It's actually all really awful, but I guess it's in the nature of
software who's distribution files are expected to be edited in unknown
ways in the normal course of using the software.

	- Justin

-- 
Justin Hawkins | justin@hawkins.id.au
               | http://hawkins.id.au

Comment 6 Pav Lucistnik 2004-11-12 19:54:51 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Committed, with the big banner telling user not to portupgrade 
this.