I do not quite understand why a BIND upgrade needs to touch soo much.

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 15-12-2014 23:26, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw at digiware.nl>

> Hm; I'd expect it to notice the new gettext and build that as well, since
> the new bind might depend on changes in it (it has no way of knowing that
> in this case it's safe). OTOH this explains some of the screw cases that
> portuprade used to get me into, which are why I use portmaster these
> days....

augh, that is something to check. I've been using portinstall/upgrade
for a serious time. Did have some awkward moments, but always consider
them pilot-error...

> Still leaves the point that 'pkg upgrade bind99' removes packages
>> without reinstalling those. The only alternatives are:
>>  -      pkg upgrade, and everything is upgraded
>>  -      capture the list of deletion, and manually re-add them after
>>         the upgrade
>>
> 
> This comes of prebuilt packages. In theory, a poudriere setup could be
> managed so that you updated only the bind99 Makefile. If you're relying on
> the standard packages, or updating a poudriere ports tree without checking
> /usr/ports/UPDATING first, you have no way to limit the update and get a
> bind99 package built against the old gettext; you have little choice but to
> upgrade everything.

This calls for something in /etc/crontab like:
 ( diff -N /usr/src/UPDATING ~/tmp/UPDATING || cp /usr/src/UPDATING
~/tmp/UPDATING )
What I us to get alerted when /usr/src/UPDATING gets changed.

But then still I'm afraid that just getting a poudriere package set for
just only bind99 is perhaps a bit too much.

> nix gives you the option of the "In theory..." above about poudriere. The
> *default* behavior won't differ.)
> 
--WjW