Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:43:05 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Free BSD 8.1 Message-ID: <20100928225602.C62022@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20100928120025.2A6EC10656DC@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20100928120025.2A6EC10656DC@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 330, Issue 2, Message: 22 On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:02:29 -0700 perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> 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 If your ports tree is very much out of date 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? Makes sense to me. There's been a ports freeze and extra attention to consistency of dependencies leading up to a -RELEASE, so there's a much better chance of all your ports working together from the outset, then you can update them at leisure while still getting on with some work! That there's also a self-consistent complete set of packages at that point seems lost on some folks having good enough bandwidth and fast enough systems to never need bothering with packages. I agree with Mike about the worms :) I have an 8.0-RELEASE system with many ports installed and quite a few configured to taste with a recently upgraded 8-STABLE world, working through a huge portversion update list, started by fetching over 900MB of packages so far including X and KDE by portupgrade -aFPP. It's going to take a while, and I'll be surprised if I don't skin a few knuckles on circular dependencies along the way. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100928225602.C62022>