On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:20:14AM -0400, Okan Demirmen wrote: > On Wed 2005.09.14 at 14:59 +0200, -f wrote: > > hmm, on Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:04:56AM +0200, Marc Espie said that > > > > > > kripel> cd /var/db/pkg > > > > > > kripel> sudo pkg_add -r `ls` > > > > > > > > > > Yes, perfectly safe. But it doesn't do what you think it would... > > > > > > > > you certainly have my attention ;-) > > > > > > pkg_add -r is short for `replace'. and then you give it a list of > > > packages *you want to install*. and here you go giving it the list of > > > packages which are already installed. > > > > ehm. yes.... ok, i try to ask a more intelligent question ;-) > > > > kripel> cd /var/db/pkg > > kripel> pkg_add -u `ls` > > kripel> sudo pkg_add -r $OUTPUT_OF_PREVIOUS_COMMAND > > > > i don't have many packages, so i am not sure if this command > > figures out all the dependencies and stuff, but my question is, > > 1) is this safe, and 2) after an update of the OS, does this > > replace a package (if no new version available) with the newer > > one compiled against the newer libc?
Well, it basically works. The version in OpenBSD 3.8 is rather conservative. The version in -current does a bit more. All of this uses the notion of package signatures, so yes, it replaces packages with newer stuff compiled against the new libc. As far as I can tell, it works correctly most of the time, and safely. It's seen a lot of testing now, and the weird stuff that can happen has been solved. I'd say it is currently as safe as all package systems that pretend to handle updates in the linux world, and the aim is to make it quite a bit safer yet.
