From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 29 22:54:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE55356 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:54:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aimass@yabarana.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBD1D69 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:54:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rr4so564649pbb.41 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=x95fmVC/nSQefnXiO++VsJ72R0p1exS73udvgrQ+VL0=; b=SAGGcN44/fc6FvXQtdo03OKL/090T5cAKFxFamgk+DxwcNH3Ew+HZxJm9yOSvWYv8h vBaxr+0M3CIBscrqBPQfZfLvOIlTl+lngzFABOgMeNKQUwhyTkSsv0Fg+0uI1a5Mpv0a dbZK9blIASQ4x31tq4pvsaZ+WwCljXm6Z5yNxtzpHAdsIs/eT0qh0nFHIy8knv75i52H YPc5hbExqDrsefBDJVYH+ic7QKsPaoiwfl1dD0aSfIiEgBuB7fMWX3GCW2Ww+8FhFgbi QMnZxAqI2sWexVmN9A4Ax26ABDMmqI48UJoCXEHKBozBMmv8jD82Gj78797+1q5fwwT+ P1FQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.203.129 with SMTP id kq1mr6612897pbc.30.1359500054658; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.157.133 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:54:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:54:14 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Detail in section 25.2.3.3 of the Handbook From: Alejandro Imass To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZhT+cUKeVlP1FWX8+kxGTkbVjhcQtTkk5QoW/U5Z0y3Pp6eQKbfQ5WT3WTJQe5Sg8MexP X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:54:15 -0000 Maybe it's intentional but in section 25.2.3.3 Rebuilding Ports After a Major Version Upgrade The step that says: portupgrade -f ruby18-bdb Shouldn't it be ruby-bdb without the 18? Is there a reason why it has to be ruby18-bdb Thanks, -- Alejandro Imass