Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:51:00 +0700 From: Roger Merritt <mcrogerm@stjohn.ac.th> To: Roop Nanuwa <roop.nanuwa@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: portupgrade-20040529 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040630144914.00a0e580@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <75f3f70504062922141aa61b5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <1088569502.83913.35.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com> <75f3f70504062921126b075a65@mail.gmail.com> <1088569502.83913.35.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:14 PM 6/30/04, you wrote: >On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:25:03 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH ><allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote: > > > > Actually, it looks to me like portinstall/portupgrade just issues a > > "make install" for the highest level dependency it can and lets the > > usual bsd.ports.mk port dependency stuff do all the work, so it doesn't > > have control over what happens in between those builds. I suspect > > changing that would require making portinstall/portupgrade a lot smarter > > (and then potentially having to update them every time bsd.ports.mk > > changes, since it can no longer let bsd.ports.mk do the heavy lifting). > >I was worried that would be the case. I looked over the feature set and there >was a line about how the portupgrade tools can follow dependency trees so I >thought there might be a chance it did handle things a bit "smarter". Excuse me, but whatever happened to portsclean? I thought that was the part of the portupgrade suite you were supposed to use from time to time to clean the working directories and unused/obsolete shared libraries. -- Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.2.0.9.0.20040630144914.00a0e580>