From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 1 07:50:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F243D5 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.bsdbox.co (122-149-22-79.static.dsl.dodo.com.au [122.149.22.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FE6179F for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.4] (122-149-22-79.static.dsl.dodo.com.au [122.149.22.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdbox.co (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2062893ED; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52ECA729.90909@bsdbox.co> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:50:01 +1100 From: nano User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guido Falsi , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libiconv on 10.0-RELEASE References: <52EC99E0.2080801@bsdbox.co> <52EC9C3D.6060505@FreeBSD.org> <52EC9ED4.6030604@bsdbox.co> <52ECA1ED.5030205@FreeBSD.org> <52ECA410.3050606@bsdbox.co> <52ECA567.7010109@FreeBSD.org> <52ECA628.9080801@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <52ECA628.9080801@madpilot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:50:07 -0000 On 1/02/2014 6:45 PM, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 02/01/14 08:42, Guido Falsi wrote: >> On 02/01/14 08:36, nano wrote: >> >>>>> I appreciate your advice, but I think I will wait before updating >>>>> these >>>>> ports. Hopefully things get cleaned up a bit. I would not be happy if >>>>> something breaks. >>>> >>>> I understand. I still have not had a good look at r341775 and have only >>>> built ports affected by it in poudrirere, and using them as binary >>>> packages, which works fine. >>>> >>> >>> I may create a jail to somewhat emulate my live environment and conduct >>> a test run to see if any problems arise. >> >> As a personal suggestion, if you have the expertise to do that, you >> should investigate using poudriere to build your own binary packages >> repository and upgrade your live, production systems from there. > I do intend to setup my own repository with Poudriere but have been delaying for some unknown reason (read: laziness). In fact, I think I will do this in the next few days. It will make things much more efficient. > Forgot to mention, if you're not using any non standard option in your > systems and using only RELEASES, then you could directly use the > packages from the official repositories. > I try to use packages where I can, but often programs require non-default build options so I have to build from ports. I'm often warned to not mix ports with packages; what is your take on this? -- bsdbox.co