Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:57:53 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster installation trampling on my binary packages??? Message-ID: <20170319225753.295be069@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <1489960668.940282.916420872.06ADF495@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1489948526.907848.916282096.587A8CA0@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAN6yY1tWawRnYY4Fzvux8PgrZsN_aRZQhEHE4%2BuQVqehcWLqMw@mail.gmail.com> <1489960668.940282.916420872.06ADF495@webmail.messagingengine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:57:48 +0000 Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > I'm not sure I understand. Are "latest" and "quarterly" ports trees? > The default packages for releases are built from a series of branches of the main ports tree that are made split-off every three months, and then just get security updates. > Oh, reading section 4 of the handbook got me into this mess. :) > Perhaps I'm too tired to read it properly, because I don't see > anything to suggest I avoid mixing packages & ports freely. The main problem is mixing packages from different versions of the ports tree. You would probably have got away with that if you'd updated as much as possible with pkg and then just updated the few remaining packages from ports, but ideally you should use the same version of the ports tree that was used to build the package files. Your problem today was that you told portmaster to upgrade *everything* from ports.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170319225753.295be069>