Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:00:33 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk Cc: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net> Subject: Re: Large port updates Message-ID: <20041207220033.GB31640@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20041207175217.3138143D46@mx1.FreeBSD.org> References: <20041207163843.GL9803@elch.haidundneu23.net> <20041207175217.3138143D46@mx1.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk wrote: > cmt@burggraben.net wrote: > > > Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107: > > : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8 > > Last time this happened, this is what caused my to deinstall gnome. THe upgrade script could take weeks to run on a reasonable spec machine because it insisted on rebuilding all sorts of stuff. You couldn't stop it, or it would start over. So install from packages instead of ports, if you don't like to compile things yourself. Taking "weeks to run" is an extreme exaggeration though, unless your "reasonable spec machine" is a 486. > It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why > not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the > way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there > either, its insanity). That doesn't make a lot of sense - you have to compile the same amount of code whether it's in 5 packages or 20. Regardless, it's the decision the gnome project has made, and it's not up to the freebsd project to do it differently. Kris P.S. Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your emails may be easily read. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBtigBWry0BWjoQKURAqa9AKDkpGLt1CYOdt/RCtDllfeSw2oCJwCfbsow Z1nQssaUZJwVA3ARIdDlR24= =uWAm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041207220033.GB31640>