From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 27 01:55:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36FEB7F for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:55:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83BE1C57 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r5R1sdYM094876; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r5R1sd0s094873; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Chris H Subject: re: portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade? In-Reply-To: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> Message-ID: References: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:39 -0600 (MDT) Cc: matthias.andree@gmx.de, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:55:01 -0000 On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Chris H wrote: > But it installed (pulled in) far more than those dependencies actually required. It may bring in build dependencies, but should be no different than manually installing ports. > I believe, due to the fact that it doesn't appear to honor the original build > options recorded in /var/db/ports//options. Nor, do I recall that it > honored /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed? Both portupgrade and portmaster did and do honor these. Both are automated versions of installing the ports manually. That can be overridden with mis-recommended BATCH variable. Don't do that. > I don't see it. Oh, and should it not have been clear; I _do_ > anticipate the "upgrade" to re-build most everything, as that is why > I'm trying to find a "mass upgrader" port, to do the "dirty work". > Also should it not have been clear in the beginning; I am _not_ doing > anything more than upgrading everything _within_ my current version; > eg; no major point upgrade, or anything. Okay, look up the last time you installed or upgraded a port: % ls -ltr /var/db/pkg The last one is the most recently modified. Update your ports tree, follow all the steps that apply to your system since that date. If any ports are left to upgrade at the end, use either port upgrade program with "-a". I recommend portmaster. It does almost everything portupgrade does, but without the overhead of Ruby or bdb.