Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:03:37 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A portupgrade question Message-ID: <200604250003.38751.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <444D3537.3060006@u.washington.edu> References: <200604242043.25020.no-spam@swiftdsl.com.au> <200604242050.57732.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <444D3537.3060006@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 24 April 2006 21:29, Garrett Cooper wrote: > RW wrote: > >On Monday 24 April 2006 12:50, Richard Collyer wrote: > >>On Mon, April 24, 2006 12:16 pm, Ian Moore wrote: > >>>On Monday 24 April 2006 20:43, Ian Moore wrote: > >>>>Hi, I've got a question about portupgrade and something that's happened > >>>>with it a couple of times now. The last 2 times libgda has been > >>>>upgraded, > >>>>I've run portupgrade -a to upgrade a bunch of ports, including libgda. > >>>> > >>>> <snip> > >> > >>I always use portupgrade -aR to make sure dependencies are done. However > >>with mysql I find that portupgrade is not the best. > > > > -a, -ra, -Ra and -RrA all do *exactly* the same thing > > Not true. -a is for all, -r is recursive, -R is upper recursive, and -A > is not even valid given the syntax above... Obviously -RrA was a typo for -Rra, but the rest is correct. If you omit -F and include -a, then the -r and -R options are ignored. Hence -a, -ra, -Ra and -Rra are all equivalent. > All I can say is, "RTFM": portupgrade(1). All I can say is "RTFS": /usr/local/sbin/portupgrade.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200604250003.38751.list-freebsd-2004>