From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 29 23:32:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FB316A41F for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:32:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from host222.ipowerweb.com (host222.ipowerweb.com [66.235.210.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26CAE13C44B for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:32:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: (qmail 99171 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2007 23:28:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO demeter.hydra) (24.9.123.251) by host222.ipowerweb.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2007 23:28:11 -0000 Received: from demeter.hydra (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by demeter.hydra (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5TNWhal013993 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:32:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: (from ren@localhost) by demeter.hydra (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l5TNWgAi013992 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:32:42 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) X-Authentication-Warning: demeter.hydra: ren set sender to perrin@apotheon.com using -f Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:32:42 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: FreeBSD Questions Message-ID: <20070629233242.GA13970@demeter.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: FreeBSD Questions References: <20070629231452.GK18911@tigger.digitaltorque.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070629231452.GK18911@tigger.digitaltorque.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Subject: Re: running portupgrade -a X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:32:45 -0000 On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 07:14:52PM -0400, Michael P. Soulier wrote: > Hi, > > It seems like a lot of people keep their ports regularly up to date by just > running portupgrade -a. I've seen it online, and in books. > > As /usr/ports/UPDATING is rather large, it seems impossible to look for > potential issues with every package that you're going to upgrade. So, is > running portupgrade -a a good idea, as you likely haven't checked for issues > for your system? > > Otherwise, the ports change so fast that if you don't regularly update, when > you do go to upgrade you may find yourself in a difficult position to do so. I check the output of the following portversion command line to see what software will be upgraded if I issue the "portupgrade -a" command: portversion | grep -v = This ensures that packages with up-to-date versions and no special notes are ignored. I then compare that list of packages to the UPDATING file to see if there's anything that requires special attention. The UPDATING file is organized in reverse chronological order. This means that you need only read down as far as the first date in the file that is old enough so you know you've updated since then. Once I have checked the portversion output against the UPDATING file, I run this command: portupgrade -ai The -i option ensures that it will ask you if you want to upgrade for each piece of software that needs upgrading, providing a sort of second line of defense -- in case you overlooked something. You shouldn't have any problems with software breaking due to lack of due diligence coupled with incompatible changes in the configuration of ports if you do that. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit."