Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:49:23 -0400 From: Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: Marian Hettwer <MH@kernel32.de> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Brent Casavant <b.j.casavant@ieee.org>, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey Message-ID: <4471C163.9060509@alumni.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <44718700.2060102@kernel32.de> References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org> <20060521231657.O6063@abigail.angeltread.org> <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org> <44718700.2060102@kernel32.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig619E4558B422EB6C3AE4F158 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/22/06 05:40, Marian Hettwer wrote: > Scott Long wrote: >>> Brent Casavant wrote: >>>> While I find ports to be the single most useful feature of the FreeB= SD >>>> experience, and can't thank contributors enough for the efforts, I o= n >>>> the other hand find updating my installed ports collection (for secu= rity >>>> reasons or otherwise) to be quite painful. I typically use portupgr= ade >>>> to perform this task. On several occasions I got "bit" by doing a >>>> portupgrade which wasn't able to completely upgrade all dependencies= >>>> (particularly when X, GUI's, and desktops are in the mix -- though I= >>>> always follow the special Gnome upgrade methods when appropriate). >=20 > Like Scott pointed out below, stick with either building from source, o= r > using packages. Mixing them may have strange side effects. > To give an example. > I usually use portupgrade without using packages. But last time I neede= d > to update my ports (on a production server, though private not corporat= e > server), I used portupgrade -P (to use packages if available). > It updated php, using packages, but unluckily the packages were built > against apache13. I'm using apache20, so my php installation was > trashed. Argh. > But even more painful is the fact that portupgrade _always_ fails on > some perl modules. Usually p5-XML-Parser. I don't know why, but it's > annoying... Dropping security@... Odd, I just did a 'portupgrade -fm "-s" p5-XML-Parser' and it worked fine. Note that I included the '-m "-s"' because it sometimes causes port build breakage for me (postfix comes to mind). Perhaps a 'portupgrade -Rf p5-XML-Parser' is in order? The only dependencies are perl and expat, so a recursive rebuild shouldn't take too long. My persistent port build breakages (that weren't caused by an error in the port) have always been resolved by rebuilding all dependencies or removing '-m "-s"'. -Jonathan --=20 Jonathan Noack | noackjr@alumni.rice.edu | OpenPGP: 0x991D8195 --------------enig619E4558B422EB6C3AE4F158 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEccFpUFz01pkdgZURAsWPAJ9US1u6lNSmqX9uBrJYrcjamJaTqgCePsiQ 5G7ndZr4VGCci+dOBHtW+pY= =OIjd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig619E4558B422EB6C3AE4F158--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4471C163.9060509>