Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:19:56 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Mario Lobo <lobo@bsd.com.br> Cc: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firefox install problem Message-ID: <20120905141956.1fdd0113.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CA%2ByoEx9iwARWTg8Zbrvq3A2G5d1sHp4X2MLBhGn0xcr3ZrwhPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2ByoEx9=SxqLjUGvMZe8137u07PQGX6VC7YC_4EHo6-ehtZEAQ@mail.gmail.com> <44txvds23l.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20120904230305.46a318b6@papi> <CAFuo_fyg610bWotuUw0Yc2sJ=2Ticm35LqGeZ3Le54VArHSnSA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209042035050.35404@wonkity.com> <CA%2ByoEx9iwARWTg8Zbrvq3A2G5d1sHp4X2MLBhGn0xcr3ZrwhPQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:25:57 -0300, Mario Lobo wrote:
> "Selectively updating ports is not supported". Then I must wonder why do
> we have the option to put "ports-{$port}" inside the supfile, and not a
> mandatory ports-all.
The reason is that you can safely ignore port categories for
languages and topics you're intendedly not going to use. I'm
using this approach here myself, but I include categories
that _might_ contain components that are dependencies for
other (more obvious) dependencies or programs.
So for example, if you omit ports-german, you should be fine
if you're not installing anything for that language. This
kind of selection is easy. Avoiding other categories can
be problematic when a "less obvious" dependency is requested
from such a category, e. g. a library in ports-astronomy for
some dependency for a library used in a component of a some
gadget for the KDE desktop. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120905141956.1fdd0113.freebsd>