From owner-freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Tue Aug 1 02:09:22 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A281EDC56C7 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 02:09:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E06472D7E for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 02:09:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) X-AuditID: 12074422-fc3ff70000000d35-99-597fe19a1fe0 Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 28.67.03381.A91EF795; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id v7124ArO025166; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:04:10 -0400 Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v71246n8010146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:04:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:04:06 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Andrew Hamilton-Wright Cc: "freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: why recommend "portmaster -af" for full port rebuild? Message-ID: <20170801020406.GW58771@kduck.kaduk.org> References: <62F28CA2-54E4-447A-B290-E57A62229D47@uoguelph.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <62F28CA2-54E4-447A-B290-E57A62229D47@uoguelph.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nojvrYX2kwfOfFha3ZjUxW5w608Xq wOQx49N8Fo/fm/cyBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGU8ufefqeA2T8XLyTPYGxgXc3UxcnJICJhI rDzylL2LkYtDSGAxk8S+P1vYIJyNjBLdd+4yQzhXmSQuzrzABNLCIqAq0bPjAAuIzSagItHQ fZkZxBYRsJe4+mc9O4jNLGAucXbXSlYQW1jASeL6pkdsIDYv0Lobrf/B6oUE7CR2bZ/EAhEX lDg58wkLRK+WxI1/L4F2cQDZ0hLL/3GAhDmBxnct/AvWKiqgLDFv3yq2CYwCs5B0z0LSPQuh ewEj8ypG2ZTcKt3cxMyc4tRk3eLkxLy81CJdU73czBK91JTSTYzgMHVR2sE48Z/XIUYBDkYl Ht4O0/pIIdbEsuLK3EOMkhxMSqK8ij1AIb6k/JTKjMTijPii0pzU4kOMEhzMSiK8RQ+Acrwp iZVVqUX5MClpDhYlcV5xjcYIIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimKwMB4eSBK82SKNgUWp6akVaZk4JQpqJ gxNkOA/QcH+w4cUFibnFmekQ+VOMilLivJNBEgIgiYzSPLheUBqRyN5f84pRHOgVYd5TIFU8 wBQE1/0KaDAT0GDJ0lqQwSWJCCmpBkaTGXM2L1fTfLVQwWftl9hKI/Pbj8OlPj0KiBU01X67 NsFQoVLRfOHfyZe3bHm51f7//3NLvpi01WarPY/YsCcsacfG7VWd06oiTvM17O279iTw/vOU Z036Ey6VTpx53nZplJlLSuAln+ttXy6pdlz8mVVs4Vai4ioz6bdHbPuTbYdP7tv4dUGZEktx RqKhFnNRcSIAuUdfEP4CAAA= X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 02:09:22 -0000 On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:55:31PM +0000, Andrew Hamilton-Wright wrote: > > Dear FreeBSD Docs, > > On the upgrading/updating page: > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.html > there is a line that recommends using > portmaster -af > to rebuild all of the ports. There is even a recommendation that '-G' be added to avoid interaction involving configuration screens. > > This, however, ignores the many other interactions that portmaster still will require. > > Is there no way to rebuild the ports without interaction? It seems that even with > portmaster -afG --no-confirm -y > I still get a long parade of interaction requests -- far more than I would if I used portupgrade. > > I will note that Doug Barton, the author of portmaster, seems to advise against using it in this form, as noted in this thread: > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2009-August/051623.html > > > Why is portmaster being recommended on this page, and if this is the best option, why is there no discussion of the many interactions that will be required (in spite of the implication of the discussion of the '-G' option)? Does this hold even when one picks one of -D or -d? (I mostly assume that it is implicitly expected that any portmaster user will get so frustrated by those prompts that they set an appropriate configuration entry to make them automatically.) Regardless, it may be worth considering documenting poudriere over portmaster or other alternatives, as I'm given to understand that it presents a smoother experience. -Ben