From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 17 10:15:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF9216A4DF; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D080743D53; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:15:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from hellfire.canal.lovett.com ([172.16.32.20]:51163) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1GDeuA-0002Rq-1l; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:15:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20060816101051.GA67212@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org> References: <20060816101051.GA67212@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ade Lovett Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:15:12 -0700 To: Hans Lambermont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: ade@lovett.com Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Ade Lovett Subject: Re: libtool upgrade question (UPDATING/20060223) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:15:15 -0000 On Aug 16, 2006, at 03:10 , Hans Lambermont wrote: > I'm wondering what the 'careful use of' really means, more > specifically > what should one look out for when using the mentioned '-n' ? "Careful" means exactly that. A simple "portupgrade -a" *may* work for you, as it has certainly done for others. However, there is plenty of complementary evidence that the exact same command line operation, with a different set of ports installed, results in a smoldering heap of instability, broken-ness, plague, locusts, spontaneous combustion, and other side effects. We have 15k+ ports. On multiple architectures. On multiple different OS revisions. As such, the likely number of all possible combinations of the above rapidly approaches the number of atoms in the (known) Universe. In such cases, it is simply easier to write "carefully", than attempt (and fail) to enumerate every single combination. It is (was) a big change. If you (generic) are at all unsure, don't rely on automated upgrade systems, particularly on mission-critical machines. -aDe