From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 07:24:28 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 DC950106564A for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:24:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ryan.coleman@cwis.biz) Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.hmc1.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.hmc1.comcast.net [76.96.53.8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA6E8FC16 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta01.westchester.pa.hmc1.comcast.net ([76.96.53.6]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.hmc1.comcast.net with comcast id C7Hr1f00G082Dic017QTB6; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:24:27 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.7] ([70.89.202.1]) by omta01.westchester.pa.hmc1.comcast.net with bizsmtp id C7QS1f00102K3z2017QThi; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:24:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ryan Coleman In-Reply-To: <4ca19305.qVDnt7/ifQhIrQ0c%perryh@pluto.rain.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:24:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5711C7AE-92FD-4ECA-B0DC-2CF91A10B809@cwis.biz> References: <20100926123019.GA41450@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4C9F3BBA.2060809@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4ca03df2.lQjjNnRah4BJhw4Y%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> <4ca19305.qVDnt7/ifQhIrQ0c%perryh@pluto.rain.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk, 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 07:24:28 -0000 On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:02 AM, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > and, in this context, your point is? >=20 > 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? As I understand it: The OS itself is stable, but the ports are = constantly in flux and may be issues. Please correct me if I am wrong.