Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:14:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Handbook suggestion: Dealing with Moved Ports Message-ID: <201306030914.r539E393038857@chilled.skew.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo8392tL6YeKuNTq%2BEU=DPtB7Jt8U%2BTspLeFyOUj2h2z8cKw@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> Personally I put a note in UPDATING if it's a version switch, because
> these shouldn't normally be done automatically.
> [...]
> Anyone disagree with me, or shall I document that? :)
The response I got on the freebsd-ports list seems to disagree.[1]
Maybe you should post there?
I personally think it should be in UPDATING, because
1. the normal method of upgrading (portmaster nameofport) does not work;
one must invoke the "-o" option;
and
2. how to deal with a moved port like this is not documented; I only
guessed at "-o" because I've seen it in lots of UPDATING entries.
I feel we should document it either way. It would be especially useful if
it's true that UPDATING is for bigger gotchas than this kind of move.
-Mike
[1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2013-May/083946.html
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201306030914.r539E393038857>