From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 27 04:24:07 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0792A914 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:24:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrish@UltimateDNS.NET) Received: from udns.ultimateDNS.NET (ultimatedns.net [209.180.214.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BF51605 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:24:06 +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 r5R4PDAm077347 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:25:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chrish@UltimateDNS.NET) Received: (from www@localhost) by udns.ultimateDNS.NET (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r5R4P8cO077343; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:25:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chrish@UltimateDNS.NET) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net ([209.180.214.225]) (UDNSMS authenticated user chrish) by ultimatedns.net with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <220d104dda060f56d162a97a38d2c004.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <20130627023717.GE3842@www.jail.lambertfam.org> References: <67588ada736599c95cac241b3c3af730.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <20130627023717.GE3842@www.jail.lambertfam.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade? From: chrish@UltimateDNS.NET To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 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 04:24:07 -0000 > 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//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 Greetings Scott, and thank you for the reply. You may be right. Like I said, it's been awhile. I don't like mixing things either. I have more than enough to think about, as it is. Why try adding any additional unnecessary elements to reconcile. I'm gonna give portmaster a try, I think. Seems to have more positive comments. But, in all fairness to portupgrade; it may have been a misunderstanding on my part. Thanks again, for taking the time to respond. --Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >