unreliable pkg upgrade of pecl / pear packages after flavors

[David Wolfskill]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:14:06PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> > UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically but it was not.
> > 
> > "People using Poudriere 3.2+ and binary packages do not have to do
> > anything."
> 
> Mmmmm, well, this sentence is partly right, and partly wrong.
> 
> If you install a PHP app, say wordpress, you do not have anything to do
> because pkg will install the new pecl package and remove the old ones.
> 
> On the other hand, if you install php/pear/pecl ports manually, you do
> have to rename them.
> 
> I will update the UPDATING entry.
> ....

How would someone performing only binary package updates know to look at
ports/UPDATING, and how would that be done?  Such an installation may
well not have /usr/ports at all.

Mind, there is useful information in ports/UPDATING, some of which
applies at least as well to binary package updates -- e.g., the 20180401
entry re. mail/dovecot and mail/dovecot-pigeonhole, which mentions:

|   Modify your Dovecot conf.d/ files before spinning up 2.3.1. The
|   upgrading instructions are detailed here:
| 
|         https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Upgrading/2.3


Perhaps I'm missing something obvious....

Peace,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill				david at catwhisker.org
An investigator who doesn't make a perp nervous isn't doing his job.

See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20180403/9d7c23df/attachment.sig>