Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:48:03 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Dick Hoogendijk <dick@nagual.nl> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: port upgrading Message-ID: <4C9FA373.3040606@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4C9F87E8.5000502@nagual.nl> References: <4C9F74DD.6000009@nagual.nl> <4C9F7F40.60407@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4C9F87E8.5000502@nagual.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 26/09/2010 18:50:32, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> On 26-9-2010 19:13, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> Really either of those two will serve you well, as will various others
>
> I like portupgrade.
> One question about dependencies: if I want to update *one* port I have
> to run "portupgrade -R portname", right.
> But *when* do I run portupgrade -R ,name> c.q. portupgrade -rR <name>?
It depends on what you want to update.
'portupgrade -R name' updates name plus anything name depends on.
'portupgrade -rR name' updates name plus anything name depends on, plus
anything that depends on name.
In all cases, only ports that have updates available are updated, so if
everything in the dependency chain is already up to date, the command
(either variant) may do nothing.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkyfo3wACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxn7wCfdX6TY5IAf6MpczNZkdagKaFC
FOgAn2dh5nZtzA37MeRDQdhnzpo+Hifa
=krI2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9FA373.3040606>