Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:20:07 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is the preferred method for updating ports now? Message-ID: <030894BD20A7128BF9BE05A3@localhost> In-Reply-To: <53988B77.1050407@freebsd.org> References: <C837118D8018025B681180B9@localhost> <53988B77.1050407@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On June 11, 2014 at 6:01:43 PM +0100 Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 06/11/14 17:20, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> I used to use cvsup. Then I switched to portsnap. Do I now need to >> switch to svn? If so, is there a way to use svn to only update those >> ports that have changed since the last update? I've been using svn for >> a while to work on port updates. I know how to fetch the entire port >> infrastructure but not how to only update those ports that have >> changed. Portsnap can be automated to keep ports up to date. Is there >> a similar utility that uses svn instead? > > To maintain a copy of the ports tree, portsnap is probably least effort, > unless you're maintaining ports or want to make local customizations, in > which case use svn. > >> Is portmaster going away any time soon? Or is that now the preferred >> method for updating ports? Is portupgrade going away? (I no longer use >> it - just wondering.) > > No. portmaster and portupgrade are here for the foreseeable future. > There's no reason to stop using them if they are your tools of choice. > Neither of those are specifically preferred for updating ports -- in > fact, there isn't any one method that is "preferred": ports supports > installing from source, with or without using tools like portmaster or > portupgrade, and it now also supports installing using binary packages > either from the FreeBSD official repositories or other repositories; > either your own, or run by (hopefully reputable) third parties like > PC-BSD for instance. > >> As a port maintainer, what tools do I use now that I've converted to >> pkgng? Do we still use portlint? Or is there a new way to do that? >> >> So many questions...... > > Yes, portlint is still important. However as a developer, you should add > > DEVELOPER=YES > > to your /etc/make.conf -- this will enable a number of sanity tests now > built into the ports Makefiles. This, plus the adoption of staging > means that you should be able to do unit tests on an updated port as > simply as: > > % make stage > % make check-orphans > % make package PACKAGES=/tmp > > which you can run as an ordinary user, rather than needing root level > access (assuming you've installed all the dependencies already.) > > If your port passes all those, then it's in good shape, although I'd > recommend further testing via Redports or the like before committing to > the tree. > Thank you, Matthew. As always, you have been very helpful. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?030894BD20A7128BF9BE05A3>