New versions that break functionality should go into a NEW port!

pvanulden

pvanulden

This may have been touched on somewhere else already but it probably deserves to be said again:

Rolling upgrades into current ports that break functionality should be avoided whenever possible.

PHP 5.4 should NEVER have been rolled into the php5 port. There should have been a new php54 port so that upgrades can be easily managed. I know many admins (myself included) who often patch their boxes with [cmd=]portupgrade -ai[/cmd] and I've almost never had to worry about stuff breaking.

I appreciate all the work that goes into maintaining ports but not dealing with stuff like this properly hurts FreeBSD as a whole.

Cheers!
 
pvanulden said:
This may have been touched on somewhere else already but it probably deserves to be said again:

Rolling upgrades into current ports that break functionality should be avoided whenever possible.

PHP 5.4 should NEVER have been rolled into the php5 port. There should have been a new php54 port so that upgrades can be easily managed. I know many admins (myself included) who often patch their boxes with [cmd=]portupgrade -ai[/cmd] and I've almost never had to worry about stuff breaking.

I appreciate all the work that goes into maintaining ports but not dealing with stuff like this properly hurts FreeBSD as a whole.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

I agree that this shouldn't have happened. I also believe that php should not have a default port version.

But most serious admins should not just use ports-mgmt/portupgrade without first reading the man pages or /ports/UPDATING first.

No offense!
 
The first rule of port upgrades: thou shalt read UPDATING.
The second rule of port upgrades: THOU SHALT READ UPDATING!
The third rule of port upgrades: thou shalt not use -a with any port management tools.

:) Perhaps we need to carve these into stone somewhere, and burn a bush or two? ;)
 
I've burned me plenty of bushes! :)

I usually do skim through UPDATING but not always. I've been using ports since they were introduced in FreeBSD and the few times that blanket upgrades didn't go well, they were easy enough to resolve. This was one of those times and while yes, I agree, it was through no fault other than my own, my point was that for a port with so many other dependent ports, upgrades which aren't backwards compatible should really go in a new version port much the same way that samba, apache, etc work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top