From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 05:11:52 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 00DFC106564A for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B523B8FC0A for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA85BpGV074797 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:11:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id oA85BoCc074794 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:11:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:11:50 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <20101107145711.1da79e9a@scorpio> Message-ID: References: <4CD6FC57.5020205@blakemfg.com> <20101107203111.37d72c45.freebsd@edvax.de> <20101107145711.1da79e9a@scorpio> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:11:51 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: portmaster question 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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:11:52 -0000 On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Jerry wrote: > When using 'portupgrade', I commonly use the '-r' flag in conjunction > with the previously discussed '-a' flag. While not as through as the > "-u -p" flags with 'portmanger', it does accomplish its goal. Isn't portupgrade -a equivalent to -arR? I hope so, or I have a correction to make...