From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 1 17:22:33 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 C47BF16A4CE for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:22:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out007.verizon.net (out007pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0987E43D31 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:22:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from reso3w83@verizon.net) Received: from ringworm.mechee.com ([4.26.84.7]) by out007.verizon.net ESMTP <20050101172232.BNFM27681.out007.verizon.net@ringworm.mechee.com>; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 11:22:32 -0600 Received: by ringworm.mechee.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 653D42CE743; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:19:29 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:19:27 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200412281128.46165.reso3w83@verizon.net> <20050101123033.GA66956@pooh.nagual.st> In-Reply-To: <20050101123033.GA66956@pooh.nagual.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501010919.28576.reso3w83@verizon.net> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out007.verizon.net from [4.26.84.7] at Sat, 1 Jan 2005 11:22:32 -0600 cc: ringworm@inbox.lv 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 17:22:33 -0000 On Saturday 01 January 2005 04:30 am, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > 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? correct, for now. I like the idea of what your suggestion though I think, if you mean being able to upgrade on port and its dependencies. -Mike