From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 23 00:47:57 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D682816A46B for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:47:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu (smtp3.utdallas.edu [129.110.10.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5A613C461 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:47:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (unknown [24.175.90.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C3D654A6 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:47:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:47:52 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <1922FF4D9B0F57F56811A4DC@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> In-Reply-To: <200712230119.30705.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> References: <221c791e0712220839v67a02e78q7cd5519f9b05a210@mail.gmail.com> <200712230119.30705.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: Updating ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:47:57 -0000 --On December 23, 2007 1:19:21 AM +0100 Peter Schuller wrote: > > In particular, given a re-build (e.g. upgraded) port X, all ports > depending on X will also be re-built regardless of whether that is > required according to the dependency relation. This is handled in such > a way that it is not dependent on the entire procedure completing in > one session, as you are with portupgrade (meaning it's restartable, as > mentioned above). > I don't understand this statement. I have killed portupgrade on numerous occasions, both locally and remotely, and have never had a problem restarting later. If you mean portupgrade doesn't restart where it left off, then yes, that's true, but only in the sense that it goes through all the ports checking for upgrades before returning to the build you left off at. > In practice, I find this is the most useful upgrading method. I have > never been able to use portupgrade for more than a week or two on a > real machine without running into issues (stale dependencies, failed > builds due to weak dependency information, etc). > I *really* don't understand this. I can count on one hand the number of times that I've run into dependency problems with portupgrade, and all of those were addressed in /usr/port/UPDATING or by simply deinstalling and reinstalling the port in question. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/