From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 18 17:26:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB919157 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C3BD1D8E for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id y10so16323577pdj.26 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:26:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FjYIJ+9H63eS8UYOSFsrra+bfNVQSn8SzbkVqBJ5JlM=; b=DedxrC09jN1q8wjEt/+G1Z6yRwUGogGF1xgV3dh5AozyjLcbqep7b9fa+ulLAggkgW oZT7LRDlYzILyWoZUclGS9Q8mlE+t0Pqa7+lrfpPhm5yv2ANE7+mMpstC8IkjRnPdbhJ 9/2DGYP5udzj3J0L8pt83+GN6SeZUHwPn0V5dM+7mQe7o8m8CNsIYNSl3+OEN+wqffuS lh0WC4Hjy2S485ehLJFATxJH/hkVzodDnwIsvtbjlndU1nfH+IGxGpD35n7gW2lM24Na ej1H3OR3JnydMJ5Z5L2tmsFpRfsWvqzrgvyGAuyOiQqIG7FEkWYpXtGDnEcPAhSx7XRZ e+ZA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.156.137 with SMTP id we9mr34638937pab.30.1392744366081; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:26:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.67.30.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:26:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530361E1.3010904@madpilot.net> References: <20140218134344.07d1b0fa@X220.alogt.com> <89558292-BAD3-46B1-82E5-63501340AE0B@lafn.org> <20140218155418.35f11ef5@X220.alogt.com> <530361E1.3010904@madpilot.net> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:26:05 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ECYBkBrOYCX9ZjX--dgoGLeg7-c Message-ID: Subject: Re: Upgrading a Port on 8.2 From: Kevin Oberman To: Guido Falsi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" , Doug Hardie , Erich Dollansky 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 17:26:06 -0000 On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Guido Falsi wrote: > 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. > In general, I agree wholeheartedly. There is one potential issue with using portsnap that will only be significant to a very few, but might unpleasantly surprise someone. Unlike svn, portsnap will overwrite the ports tree and eliminate any local modifications. Most people don't have any of these, so for most, this is not an issue. People just need to be aware of it if they do as the files are gone after running portsnap, making recovery a pain. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com