unreliable pkg upgrade of pecl / pear packages after flavors

[Miroslav Lachman]

Mathieu Arnold wrote on 2018/04/03 17:34:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:07:22AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I assumed pkg updating worked without a /usr/ports, seems I was wrong.

This is one thing I post about in the past. pkg updating is not working 
if you do not have /usr/ports synchronised by svn update / portsnap or 
some home grown system.

We are using one simple cronjob to fetch /usr/ports/UPDATING on all our 
machines because they are binary packages only.
I think this should be included in "pkg updating" function (fetch 
UPDATING from configured repository)

Miroslav Lachman