Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:21:43 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster question Message-ID: <20101109002143.76a55db2@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011081237020.77875@wonkity.com> References: <4CD6FC57.5020205@blakemfg.com> <20101107203111.37d72c45.freebsd@edvax.de> <20101107145711.1da79e9a@scorpio> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011072200560.74543@wonkity.com> <20101108062255.432ca434@scorpio> <20101108143759.271acd17@gumby.homeunix.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011081237020.77875@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:50:21 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, RW wrote: > > > -aRr isn't implied by -a, the rR options are ignored in the former. > > > > I think it's fairly clear that recursing through installed > > packages with consistent dependecies isn't going to find a package > > that isn't in the set of all installed packages. > > That sentence makes me a little dizzy. I think you mean that since > -a is equivalent to listing all packages on the command line, -r or > -R are redundant. > > So portupgrade \* (i.e., -a) is a superset of > > portupgrade -r libexample > > because all the dependencies of libexample are included in the \* and > so portupgrade will see they need to be updated because a port they > depend on has been updated... Right? yes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101109002143.76a55db2>