From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 07:10:55 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AEC106564A for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:10:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087CD8FC12 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id o8S7Aq8x036272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:10:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id o8S7AqJA036271; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA24650; Tue, 28 Sep 10 00:02:31 PDT Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:02:29 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk Message-Id: <4ca19305.qVDnt7/ifQhIrQ0c%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20100926123019.GA41450@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4C9F3BBA.2060809@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4ca03df2.lQjjNnRah4BJhw4Y%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Free BSD 8.1 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: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:10:55 -0000 Mike Clarke wrote: > On Monday 27 September 2010, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to > > install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; > > then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the > > corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release- > > corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or > > where I want non-default OPTION settings. That approach should > > avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and > > working. _After_ everything is installed and configured > > properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any > > ports need to be updated -- and the already-installed-and- > > working package collection will provide a fallback in case > > of trouble trying to build any updated versions. > > The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of > a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date > then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number > of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports > depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be > updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a > lot of sorting out. The "little and often" approach of keeping > the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic. and, in this context, your point is? I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline, consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed. Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow ports updates, once the baseline has been established?