Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:44:13 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupdate xorg-server Message-ID: <20090321014413.42ce80b2@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <ab7b49bc0903201504x126b3daas5944cb096829c0e@mail.gmail.com> References: <ab7b49bc0903191321n651b86d6i2035280867650780@mail.gmail.com> <20090319211530.GA27605@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <ab7b49bc0903200814r5f8a6281tacca690869848b7@mail.gmail.com> <49C3D104.50307@gmail.com> <ab7b49bc0903201504x126b3daas5944cb096829c0e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:04:00 -0500 Neal Hogan <nealhogan@gmail.com> wrote: > But, I wonder what the most efficient way is to update ports. I > appreciate Adam's point about the fact that portupgrade (and > portmanager and portmaster) are ports themselves and are going to not > be as reliable as what is in base. IMO this doesn't make any sense. If portupgrade is failing on a port where manual "make install" works, then portupgrade simply has a bug. Any port upgrading tool belongs in a port, because it's more important that it responds to changes in the ports system than changes in the base system. As to upgrading piecemeal rather than with -a, I don't see how that helps, and it may actually make things worse by not building in dependency order.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090321014413.42ce80b2>