Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:55:31 +0000 From: Andrew Hamilton-Wright <andrew.hamilton-wright@uoguelph.ca> To: "freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org> Subject: why recommend "portmaster -af" for full port rebuild? Message-ID: <62F28CA2-54E4-447A-B290-E57A62229D47@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear FreeBSD Docs,
On the upgrading/updating page:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.h=
tml
there is a line that recommends using
portmaster -af
to rebuild all of the ports. There is even a recommendation that '-G' be a=
dded to avoid interaction involving configuration screens.
This, however, ignores the many other interactions that portmaster still wi=
ll require.
Is there no way to rebuild the ports without interaction? It seems that ev=
en with
portmaster -afG --no-confirm -y
I still get a long parade of interaction requests -- far more than I would =
if I used portupgrade.
I will note that Doug Barton, the author of portmaster, seems to advise aga=
inst using it in this form, as noted in this thread:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2009-August/051623.h=
tml
Why is portmaster being recommended on this page, and if this is the best o=
ption, why is there no discussion of the many interactions that will be req=
uired (in spite of the implication of the discussion of the '-G' option)?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62F28CA2-54E4-447A-B290-E57A62229D47>