From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 15 18:17:23 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 9B62116A41A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:17:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nlecic@EUnet.yu)
Received: from smtpclu-5.eunet.yu (smtpclu-5.eunet.yu [194.247.192.230])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D38D13C4CA
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:17:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nlecic@EUnet.yu)
Received: from nyx.localhost (adsl-213-51.eunet.yu [213.198.213.51])
	by smtpclu-5.eunet.yu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7FIORUE022485;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:24:28 +0200
Message-Id: <200708151824.l7FIORUE022485@smtpclu-5.eunet.yu>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:12:21 +0200
From: Nikola Lecic <nlecic@EUnet.yu>
To: Christopher Key <cjk32@cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <46C2EF03.4040102@cam.ac.uk>
References: <46C20CB8.3010706@cam.ac.uk>
	<200708142245.l7EMjQ8o027148@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu>
	<20070815083210.M54184@obelix.home.rakhesh.com>
	<200708150810.l7F8AJEv032092@smtpclu-2.EUnet.yu>
	<46C2EF03.4040102@cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE
X-Face: pbl6-.[$G'Fi(Ogs2xlXP-V6{3||$Y[LOYs&~GJoikj'cVjcFC[V7du;;0~6nO=
	[Vi2?uU1Pq~,=Adj@,T:|"`$AF~il]J.Nz#2pU',<?aVE8W5LBM@2dN&qv2<Kqb
	$A/;afQws-NE\>Y7.{B;m/?{#sO^Dvo$rnmY6]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-EUNET-AVAS-Milter-Version: 2.0.0
X-AVAS-Virus-Status: clean
X-AVAS-Spamd-Symbols: BAYES_50,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
X-AVAS-Spam-Score: 0.0
Cc: Rakhesh Sasidharan <rakhesh@rakhesh.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: portupgrade question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:17:23 -0000

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:18:11 +0100
Christopher Key <cjk32@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

[...]
> I've gone for a portconf based solution for now, although, when I get=20
> the chance, I'll try to test how portupgrade behaves wrt
> dependencies.

Please don't forget to try switching to portupgrade-devel in that case.
According to /usr/ports/UPDATING recommendations (20070519):

  # portupgrade -f -o ports-mgmt/portupgrade-devel portupgrade
  # ...
  (etc., do the rest in order to rebuild /var/db/ bits and to build or
  fetch the new INDEX.)

If dependencies bug ever really existed (I can't remember that anyone
confirmed that offering an example), it was related to non-devel
version.

> I would prefer to use pkgtools.conf for several reasons:
[...]
> 2) MAKE_ARGS get echoed when things are being built, whereas
> arguments in make.conf don't seem to

Agree here, this is sometimes the only 100% sure method to know how the
binary in question was really built.

Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87