Order of canonical upgrade sequence

[Warner Losh]

[[ summarizing a conversation in irc ]]

The below fragment doesn't match UPDATING. Since I don't think the order matters; and since we've had no reports that UPDATING is wrong; and since I think way more people follow updating than the Makefile; we should fix the makefile and make the docs match both.

Warner

On May 29, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Chris Rees wrote:

> Hi all!
> 
> Back in 2005, when Alexander Leidinger wrote the make delete-old
> target, he documented the order of upgrade such that it should be run
> before mergemaster [1];
> 
> #  7.  `make installworld'
> #  8.  `make delete-old'
> #  9.  `mergemaster'
> 
> I have merged the delete-old section of the Handbook into the
> upgrading chapter, and independently decided to put mergemaster first,
> because I thought it would be safer, but checked here before I
> committed.
> 
> I think that steps 8 and 9 should be reversed, because of the
> possibility of an unbootable system being made, when an rc script
> references an executable that has just been removed for example.
> 
> I cannot think of an example where the system is left
> unbootable/damaged if make delete-old is run after mergemaster.
> 
> What do people think of the patch at [2]?
> 
> Chris
> 
> [1] http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/Makefile?r1=148329&r2=148330&
> 
> [2] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/delete-old-order.diff