Recent Mk/ changes (r320679)

Jim Pingle lists at
Wed Jun 26 12:43:41 UTC 2013

On 6/26/2013 2:40 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> No the justification is that we use to have a perl-after-upgrade script to
> workaround the fact that we used major.minor.patchlevel my bypassing the package
> tool to modify directly the content of the package database and more some files
> on the file system each time a new perl update comes (like perl 5.12.2 ->
> 5.12.4) without this script being run every single minor update of perl was
> requiring manual intervention to fix up all the installed packages whereever
> they came from ports or package etc.

For what it's worth, as a user, I would love to have seen
perl-after-upgrade stick around just a little longer to move the files
from major.minor.patchlevel to major.minor. Without it, it did require
recompiling everything related to perl, or manually chasing down ports
and forcing an update of anything that dropped files in
major.minor.patchlevel, which is exactly what it was intended to help
avoid. Maybe some industrious perl wizard could fix it and make a
separate port for it for those of us who don't need pkgng (yet!) and
still want to use it at least this one last time.

There are probably various technical reasons why that wouldn't have made
sense or have been possible, but it bit me yesterday on my desktop. I
found myself really missing perl-after-upgrade, especially when
portupgrade was telling me it wanted to rebuild 682 ports and I decided
the manual way was faster (upgraded p5* and then manually tracked down
stragglers in maj.min.pat)

Some more expansion on the note in UPDATING at least other than stating
it was removed might be nice to see. Maybe a link to the freebsd-perl
mailing list thread with the discussion.

I think the move was a good one overall, but the transition could be


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list