Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:37:17 -0500 From: Scott Lambert <lambert@lambertfam.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade? Message-ID: <20130627023717.GE3842@www.jail.lambertfam.org> In-Reply-To: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> References: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chris H wrote: > 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/<portname>/options. Nor, do I recall that it honored > /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed? You may have asked portupgrade to use packages first and fall back to building from source. That would install the packages which were built with the default options on the package building cluster. It saves time; but I don't like mixing packages with build from source, especially when I want custom options on anything. -- Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lambert@lambertfam.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130627023717.GE3842>