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 [email protected] 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
