From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 21 17:04:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4031A1065670 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:04:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f171.google.com (mail-ew0-f171.google.com [209.85.219.171]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C378FC18 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:04:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so948150ewy.43 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yhv5CYvcyKPhGsLsv888aS0E5cFnxM5mZhw2EpzRj5s=; b=p7FAICnUYR/SoD79oXWxP02wDoPuNkeQ1Nx7+yw2ma/gdcDyMSCUEDkVDfA3qfycSP FUScl/l6H7jONpnoRHmeAvibuHk6IWVLNMGCNp51fK0IBaGfgIP5wS8RLC9CptvSfMZV Hglt6Kvzf3N7GmFy1dNIcHrOr4JrUBGqguoUE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=acu3KmHQtp81d2z12SAqX2fDbgTqcTSzWtS/BKqfobtSpkrTd0BTrxgLbSk3M0Fyvd vrGv78K6baPJHOtp1pTKgm0BwoEGo08Ru98w4HidceGUzud6YnCaTNbg0emTDa3wVQuS W0HTVs7NgWcs8OKtUFAjl2BjdGIPlOebmqTnM= Received: by 10.210.86.10 with SMTP id j10mr3870692ebb.30.1237655090647; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm3619255eyb.0.2009.03.21.10.04.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:04:46 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20090321170446.78f8504a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <49C47D93.8080902@gmail.com> References: <20090319211530.GA27605@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <49C3D104.50307@gmail.com> <20090321014413.42ce80b2@gumby.homeunix.com> <49C47D93.8080902@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-portbld-freebsd7.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: portupdate xorg-server 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: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:04:52 -0000 On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:39:31 -0500 Adam Vande More wrote: > RW wrote: > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > As to the first part of your msg, what you said doesn't make any > sense to me either. Never did I claim portupgrade fails where a > normal make install would succeed. I would appreciate it if you > could take my example as I state it instead adding stuff to make it > sound implausible. And I would appreciate it if you actually read what I posted before you accuse me of making things up. My reply wasn't to your email it was to Neil Hogan, who did say that. > Also > after you get some experience in ports, you'll be able to understand > that you can't depend on it compiling all the time. >.. > Hope that clears up the confusion for you. Since you are the one that sees problems, and I find the whole thing to be generally straightforward, I don't really think you are in a position to be condescending. Many problems that are seen after a portupgrade -R will go away after after a "portupgrade -a", so why waste time in debugging them. In my experience a failed "portupgrade -a" scarcely ever leads to runtime problems and most build problems are resolved after running csup. Personally I don't find fault-finding signifiantly harder after a "portupgrade -a" than after a "portupgrade -R" YMMV. The really important thing is to read UPDATING, but if you don't update frequently enough you can run into a state where it's difficult to conflate the entries into a single recipe. If I ever let things slide to the point where I was faced with two really complex metaport updates, I *might* be tempted to take the tree back to the point when the first update stablised and do them sequentially in that way.