From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 27 00:33:54 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FF232C for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:33:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@1command.com) Received: from udns.ultimateDNS.NET (ultimatedns.net [209.180.214.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DDA1915 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from udns.ultimateDNS.NET (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimateDNS.NET (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5R0Yp4t061244; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@1command.com) Received: (from www@localhost) by udns.ultimateDNS.NET (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r5R0Yj3l061243; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@1command.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net ([209.180.214.225]) (UDNSMS authenticated user chrish) by ultimatedns.net with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re: portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade? From: "Chris H" To: matthias.andree@gmx.de User-Agent: UDNSMS/2.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:33:54 -0000 > Am 26.06.2013 18:42, schrieb Chris H: >> Greetings, >> I haven't upgraded my tree(s) for awhile. My last attempt to rebuild after an updating >> src && ports, resulted in nearly installing the entire ports tree, which is why I've >> waited so long. Try as I might, I've had great difficulty finding something that will >> _only_ upgrade what I already have installed, _and_ respect the "options" used during the >> original make && make install, or those options expressed in make.conf. >> As portupgrade(1) && portmaster(8) appear to be the most used in this scenario, >> I'm soliciting opinions on which of these works best, or if there is something else to >> better manage this situation. Is there such a thing as a FreeBSD upgrade "easy button"? >> >> Thank you for all your consideration. > Chris, > > this time around, you will again rebuild almost your entire ports tree > because some basic ports, such as Perl. > > Also, you will rarely be able to only upgrade what you already have > installed because sometimes ports grow new requisite other ports you do > not already have. > > I haven't used portupgrade in a long time because there was a period > where it had fallen to bit-rot, but both tools are being maintained now. > > portupgrade has the decided advantage of being able to continue building > some ports if another port failed as long as the failed port is not > itself a requisite port for one that is yet to be built; portmaster > bails out at the first error. > > portmaster, on the other hand, has a "rebuild everything" approach in > the manual page, and can be used to list only leaf ports -- but that > approach will require you to deinstall all ports so that the machine > becomes unusable while it builds. > > There are other approaches, like using portmaster just to list this > ports tree, and then use Tinderbox or poudriere to build packages in a > chroot, and then only deinstall and install if you have all packages > built successfully - but I am not familiar with automating this, not > familiar with poudriere, and it requires a bit of work to get your > options transferred to these build systems. Such a "build all packages > first before you start deinstalling" would reduce the downtime, though. > > Hope that helps a little. > > Best regards > Matthias Andree Greetings, and thank you for your reply. I understand that portupgrade _will_ pull in other dependencies _as needed_ -- I _do_ read the man(1) pages. :) But it installed (pulled in) far more than those dependencies actually required. I believe, due to the fact that it doesn't appear to honor the original build options recorded in /var/db/ports//options. Nor, do I recall that it honored /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed? I don't see it. Oh, and should it not have been clear; I _do_ anticipate the "upgrade" to re-build most everything, as that is why I'm trying to find a "mass upgrader" port, to do the "dirty work". Also should it not have been clear in the beginning; I am _not_ doing anything more than upgrading everything _within_ my current version; eg; no major point upgrade, or anything. Thank you again, for taking the time to respond. --chris