From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 26 18:23:53 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 51F4916A41C for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:23:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from top.daemonsecurity.com (62-14-217-85.inversas.jazztel.es [62.14.217.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE93A43D1F for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:23:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from [192.168.0.64] (unknown [192.168.0.64]) by top.daemonsecurity.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA84FEB8F; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:23:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42BEF2B1.2020902@locolomo.org> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:23:45 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_N=F8rgaard?= Organization: Locolomo.ORG User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050529) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zbyslaw References: <20050625112256.GA32433@lothlorien.nagual.st> <42BD41CC.70202@locolomo.org> <42BD8983.1000303@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <42BD8983.1000303@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: upgrading all ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:23:53 -0000 Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > Erik Nørgaard wrote: >> portupgrade isn't suitable for upgrading the entire machine, even >> though you do recursive and Recursive. > > What, in your opinion, makes it unsuitable? I've used portugrade > exclusively and never had trouble. Unsuitable if - it is slower than the altertative to deinstall all ports and reinstall. - thinks break I don't claim it won't work, I don't claim that things will break, but they may depending on what is being upgraded which was not mentioned in OP. The problem is that the double (up and down) recursive resolution of interdependencies quickly becomes very complex with the result that some ports may be updated multiple times, or that portupgrade will choke trying to figure out where to start. It then quickly becomes much faster to simply deinstall all ports and reinstall. It also lets you clean up any junk that may have been left for whatever reasons. And, then there are the general warnings about upgrading Gnome (not minor minor upgrades) eg 2.8 to 2.10, upgrading perl and friends, module paths etc. These are things that can ofcourse be resolved, I just found it easier to clean up the whole thing and reinstall it, see /usr/ports/UPDATING - there are numerous warnings on portupgrade. For single/few apps upgrade portupgrade is fine, or if the system is mostly up to date so a full upgrade will only affect a few packages. I have had my system serverely down after using portupgrade because of problems with dependencies on X11. OP did not mention how old the system to be upgraded is. So in the particular case it is dificult to say. But I assume that if he wants to upgrade his _entire_ system then I can assume significant updates to be done. Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: http://www.locolomo.org S/MIME Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/2004071206.crt Subject ID: A9:76:7A:ED:06:95:2B:8D:48:97:CE:F2:3F:42:C8:F2:22:DE:4C:B9 Fingerprint: 4A:E8:63:38:46:F6:9A:5D:B4:DC:29:41:3F:62:D3:0A:73:25:67:C2