Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 25 Dec 2004 00:52:12 +0100
From:      Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
To:        "Michael C. Shultz" <reso3w83@verizon.net>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager
Message-ID:  <20041224235211.GA25610@scode-whitestar.mine.nu>
In-Reply-To: <200412241125.04925.reso3w83@verizon.net>
References:  <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> <200412232338.09555.reso3w83@verizon.net> <200412241554.03932.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <200412241125.04925.reso3w83@verizon.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That is indeed the case with portmanager. Sometimes it is a waste
> of time to rebuild everthing when a dependency changes, and sometimes
> it is the right thing to do, portmanager assumes it is always the right 
> thing to do. One way this has proved to be a benefit is I've never
> had to run the special scripts when gnome is updated because after
> running portmanager everything is already up to date.

Interesting. While I certainly don't mind a tool doing what's right, this
issue which also exists with NetBSD's pkg_chk is the primary reason why
I'm almost about to give up on it; it's just feasable to perform full
system upgrades properly. Having your primary workstation half unusable for
three days while the whole universe is rebuilding is not very nice...

One possible solution I have considered for pkg_chk that may also work
for portmanager is to set up a build environment in a chroot where
everything is properly upgraded. Either for building packages for all
upgraded ports such that the ports installed on the real system can then
be upgraded quickly using the packages; or alternatively by perhaps
maintaining two separate target directories such that one is being
used by normal applications while the other one is being built. One
could then make the switch atomically by re-mounting /usr/local
(or /usr/pkg in NetBSDs case).

Is this even feasable?

Is portmanager intended to fully replace portupgrade in the long run? If
so I would, as a user, very much value being able to upgrade all
ports without disabling the machine in question. As it stands now,
I much prefer portupgrade to NetBSD's pkg_chk for exactly this reason,
even if portupgrade requires manual tweaking sometimes.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041224235211.GA25610>