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

[Ronald Klop]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:11:29 +0100, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw at digiware.nl>  
wrote:

> 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.


People can put this in their RSS reader for alerts of /usr/ports/UPDATING:  
http://updating.versia.com/atom/ports
Or variations of http://updating.versia.com/atom/stable-10 for  
/usr/src/UPDATING.

Regards,
Ronald.