Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:15:47 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade (vs. Portmanager) question Message-ID: <200503280615.47598.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050328085024.1bad28eb.rpratt1950@earthlink.net> References: <20050328044052.75667.qmail@web53909.mail.yahoo.com> <4247B6F7.8010508@att.net> <20050328085024.1bad28eb.rpratt1950@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 28 March 2005 05:50 am, Randy Pratt wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:49:11 -0800 > > Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net> wrote: > > Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > > It would be nice if the ports make options were better > > > documented, but > > > > > > you can read through /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk and find > > > information on the various options. > > > > > > here is an example: > > > > > > # all-depends-list > > > # - Show all directories which are > > > dependencies # for this port. > > > > > > then > > > > > > cd /usr/ports/lang/ezm3/ > > > make all-depends-list > > > > > > result: > > > > > > /usr/ports/converters/libiconv > > > /usr/ports/devel/gettext > > > /usr/ports/devel/gmake > > > /usr/ports/devel/libtool15 > > > > > > -Mike > > > > Mike, > > > > That's great info, thank you. It really helps put this into > > perspective. > > > > I did portmanager -sl and it identifies 7 candidates for deletion. > > It identifies cvsup-without-gui and also identifies ezm3 upon which > > it depends. Am I missing something here or shouldn't ezm3 not been > > identified as a "leaf port"? > > Good observation on your part and its a good question to ask. > > I'm not real familar with portmanager but it appears to identify the > leaf ports in the same manner as sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and > sysutils/pkg_rmleaves do. The utilities are only considering the > run-dependencies as needed. The main difference between sysutils/pkg_cutleaves and portmanager -slid is portmanager catches all of the leafs in one pass, even after you've deleted a few. With pkg_cutleaves when you remove a leaf you have to look through all of them again to see if any new ones were exposed. > > Any port that is only required as a build-dependency is treated as > a leaf port. They could be removed but it would have to be rebuilt > if it were needed again. Correct. > > I usually keep these tools that are only needed for building since I > run portupgrade nightly. Others that have limited hard disk space > might elect to remove them and their associated source tarballs. Its > left to the individual to decide whether or not to keep them. The idea behind identifying leaves is to see ports you may have installed and forgotten about because you never use them. Unless space is a problem I would recommend not removing ports that are build tools like ezm. -Mike > > You're on the right track to understanding how the ports system works > and using its tools. Just keep reading the man pages and observing > how things function. > > Best regards, > > Randy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503280615.47598.ringworm01>