Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:19:16 +0100
From:      Alberto Villa <avilla@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Mark Terribile <materribile@yahoo.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Returning with question about SELECTIVELY updating ports tree
Message-ID:  <AANLkTimK0Mm3E=D3nn_VBkAsgw%2BY7w97w3cLGg15WTSn@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <928239.73646.qm@web110308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References:  <4D3626AE.1050709@FreeBSD.org> <928239.73646.qm@web110308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Mark Terribile <materribile@yahoo.com> wro=
te:
> When you do that, don't you mess up the "install/uninstall" data? =A0The =
new port may not know how to uninstall the old one correctly, or even under=
stand that the old one is installed.

the "install/uninstall" data, as you call it, is managed by the
installed packages, whose database is in /var/db/pkg, it doesn't even
read or touch /usr/ports

about your first question, i don't understand why you don't want to
update the whole tree. unless you want to be able to reinstall ports
at the same version they are at the moment (and then you really need
the current version of the Makefiles, or at least the built packages),
i'd update the whole tree and then update individual ports (and maybe
their dependency, when strictly required), keeping all the other
updates off

or did i completely misunderstand?
--=20
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer <avilla@FreeBSD.org>
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimK0Mm3E=D3nn_VBkAsgw%2BY7w97w3cLGg15WTSn>