Maybe something like a make safeupdate target would be acceptable.   
It would differ in that it would pkg_tarup all the packages before  
removing them and if the update failed put everything back into place.

No I do not know what I'm proposing, nor do I know if it would be  
difficult at all it was just a random thought.

On 23/06/2005, at 11:01 AM, Sean Davis wrote:



> Okay, I know I've complained about this before now, and I know  
> other people
> have as well. I'm sick of it. What does it take to update a  
> package, and not
> have "make update" rape 90 other packages that aren't even remotely  
> related?
>
> For example, I wanted to update mplayer. So I did a 'make update' in
> multimedia/mplayer. Guess what? KDE got nuked. And didn't build. So  
> I was
> left without it until I rebuilt it from meta-pkgs/kde3 manually.
>
> What will it take to get the pkgsrc developers to actually fix make  
> update?
> I'm tired of being told to use pkg_comp: Every time I've used it,  
> it can't
> build kdeaddons. Not to mention, why should I have to build a full  
> release
> of NetBSD, just to build one single package safely?
>
> I don't hear these kinds of complaints from FreeBSD users regarding
> portupgrade. I am no FreeBSD fan, but seriously: why is it  
> necessary to nuke
> every package before rebuilding? why not build, and IF IT BUILDS,  
> then nuke
> and reinstall? That seems to be the saner course of action to me.  
> That way
> I'm not left with half the packages I had before because I updated one
> relatively insignifigant package that some weird dependency chain  
> linked to
> KDE, and then to everything else.
>
> I'm tired of it. So: what'll it be? money? hardware? or should I  
> just act
> like nothing is wrong with the update target, like the pkgsrc  
> developers do?
>
> -Sean
>
>
>