Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:07:05 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade -af question Message-ID: <20041027140705.GA26376@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20041027003640.K42571@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <BAY2-DAV100Bqhk6KR800012731@hotmail.com> <20041027003640.K42571@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:48:52AM -0400, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: > >installed ports. But this would take a whole day, especially since it's > >just a single processor Pentium III system. Shouldn't it be faster to let > >portupgrade use pre-compiled packages (either from a 5.3-RELEASE install > >CD or from a remote site)? Something like: 'portupgrade -afP' ? Would it > >work? This would save a lot of time... a lot of down-time, in fact. > > This is guaranteed to work if: > - Your ports skeleton is up to date. > - This machine has HTTP and FTP access enabled. > - The ports you are upgrading are not forbidden, deprecated or broken. > - All distfiles are available from at least one of the relevant mirrors. > > This is the case because portupgrade -P searches for packages locally or > wherever PKG_PATH points to, tries to use pkg_fetch and then falls back to > updating from ports if precompiled packages are not available. Also, if you're using non-default compile options for ports (e.g. setting WITH_*/WITHOUT_* or other control variables), you won't get this if you update with the package (which are built with default options). Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBf6uIWry0BWjoQKURAjGlAKD+Ix8wunF/pDS8fYqnQO73bWWKzwCgltBq ZC9plkIx3qg8v8bkLh2G6V4= =e6l1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041027140705.GA26376>