From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 1 12:30:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF02B16A4CE for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:30:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.st (cc20684-a.assen1.dr.home.nl [217.122.132.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7F943D31 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:30:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dick@nagual.st) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by nagual.st with local; Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:30:33 +0100 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:30:33 +0100 To: freebsd-questions Message-ID: <20050101123033.GA66956@pooh.nagual.st> References: <200412281128.46165.reso3w83@verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412281128.46165.reso3w83@verizon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i From: Dick Hoogendijk Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:30:47 -0000 On 28 Dec Michael C. Shultz wrote: > Portmanager only addresses that one issue and for the forseeable > future that is where all the focus will be, only on correctly updating > ports. Am I to understand correctly that portmanager _always_ updates ALL the old ports? A 'pormanager -u sylpheed' is not possible then? -- dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.10 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody) + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja