upgrade of file(1) to 4.10 (including FreeBSD elf(5) fixes)
obrien at freebsd.org
Mon Aug 9 02:30:31 PDT 2004
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
> >>that feature, and it is useful for debugging ports that should have
> >>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)
More information about the freebsd-current