From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 18 13:36:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E561D62 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from winston.madpilot.net (winston.madpilot.net [78.47.75.155]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D0815AE for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from winston.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3fT34j5sqYzFT9y; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:36:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=madpilot.net; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :references:subject:subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:from :date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mail; t=1392730594; x=1394544995; bh=0xZxfAU1Q6TNVHweAA+cxIWklzKYnY29yv5qI7gk/qM=; b= V9bKUCpCKkMunFmrELfjS2jJG69epiwMbnHumEdTiBt4RMsysWcaqVBToT2kj62d J6DqzYbYD1r8Bhfg6p6ZcrRv/BLmD63n9Z9Wp1FARtBNSrBDY2uItL8LizKKgDqt iBLP2IT//NI0vOHNybD7OOCAbU8/wiBZ/0vMFTPGPzc= Received: from winston.madpilot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by winston.madpilot.net (winston.madpilot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8T4ZLGKoli9K; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:36:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from tommy.madpilot.net (micro.madpilot.net [88.149.173.206]) by winston.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:36:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <530361E1.3010904@madpilot.net> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:36:33 +0100 From: Guido Falsi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erich Dollansky , Doug Hardie Subject: Re: Upgrading a Port on 8.2 References: <20140218134344.07d1b0fa@X220.alogt.com> <89558292-BAD3-46B1-82E5-63501340AE0B@lafn.org> <20140218155418.35f11ef5@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <20140218155418.35f11ef5@X220.alogt.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:36:47 -0000 On 02/18/14 08:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:51:51 -0800 > Hi, > > Doug Hardie wrote: > >> >> On 17 February 2014, at 21:43, Erich Dollansky >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:07:43 -0800 >>> Doug Hardie wrote: >>> >>>> I have an older, but basically clean, install of 8.2 on a >>>> production system. It has a few ports that were installed back >>>> when 8.2 was new. However, I need to add pdftk. Pkg_add did that >>>> nicely. HOwever, it added version 1.44. The history for pdftk >>>> shows that a major problem was fixed in 1.45 and I am encountering >>>> that problem and need to upgrade. Portupgrade pdftk does >>>> nothing. It seems to decide that the latest version is 1.44. >>>> However, on a 9.2 system, I get a much higher version number. Is >>>> there any way to determine if 1.44 is the latest version that will >>>> run with 8.2 or is there another way I need to upgrade to ports >>>> files? Its my understanding that cvsup is no longer with us. >>> >>> how I understand your problem, the behaviour of the machine is >>> normal as you kept the old ports tree. >>> >>> If you would like to have a newer version of a port, you would have >>> to update the ports tree first. The big but is then that you will >>> have to update all installed ports too and then install the program >>> you need. >>> >>> If you have real bad luck, this could force you even to upgrade from >>> 8.2 to 8.4. So, be careful. >> >> Thats what I expected, but the question remains: how? Cvsup I >> believe is no longer with us and purtupgrade apparently doesn't do >> that either. > > I would suggest that you take ftp to download the current ports tree. > It contains then a current svn. You would not need svn after this as > the ports are downloaded by using fetch. > > Of course, for further updates, I would recommend moving to svn. This is more a personal opinion, but for general production use(not development) portsnap is a much better choice than subversion. portsnap is usually not more than one hour behind the subversion repository, so, if you don't really need the latest changes, it's quite fresh and much faster at downloading updates. It's also included in base also on older releases (10 and up have svnlite included in base too). just an opinion though. -- Guido Falsi