Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:11:23 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1014410272.750ac9@mired.org> Cc: bmah@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best way to upgrade all installed ports? Message-ID: <20020217221123.A48670@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <15472.5279.611970.984440@guru.mired.org>; from mwm-dated-1014410272.750ac9@mired.org on Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:37:51PM -0600 References: <20020217171134.13037.qmail@www.smluc.org> <200202171728.g1HHSQJ69338@bmah.dyndns.org> <15472.5279.611970.984440@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:37:51PM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: > I tried portupgrade, and found that I had to do more work every time I > used it than I had to do in dealing with the occasional problems > caused by dependency rot from pkg_version -c. I didn't. portupgrade solves a lot of headaches. The only time I get into trouble is when sudo is upgraded, because I always run 'portupgrade -sRa'. > For one thing, it doesn't handle packages that don't come from the > ports tree gracefully. Given that I've always got at least one of > those, and sometimes two or three, that's a pain. You can specify 'held' packages in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf; I specify = my 'local' ports there, and never have any problems, except that they're marked as 'being held'. > For another, it doesn't handle the case where a dependency is missing > and I want it that way. This happens when an port A installs > applications 1, 2, and 3, and I want to use applications 1 and 2 but > don't care about 3. But 3 requires a library package B that's bigger > than everything else installed to run A put together. Worse yet, > having B installed means that other ports will by default build with > code that depends on it, which means I have to have the daemon part of > B running for them to operate properly, and I don't want to do *that*, > either. The easy solution is to just delete B and forget about > it. Except portupgrade won't let me. You can delete dependencies from ports if portupgrade asks you when you run pkgdb -F; press ^D and it will delete the dependency. After that, you can deinstall port B because A doesn't depend on it anymore. Actually, if you just pkg_delete -f B, you can then fix up your pkgdb using pkgdb -F and it will suggest that the dependency on B needs to be deleted. > Portupgrades insistence that everything be nice and tidy means that > every time I run portupgrade, I have to deal with all these issues. > If things could be tagged as "broken but acceptable", I'd be a lot > happier. Better yet, if it would do the reverse of what it does now, > and when something was "broken but acceptable" and not actually > broken, let me know about it, that would add utility to it. They can; check out /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf.sample (and the manpages of course). --Stijn --=20 The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body. This means that only left handed people are in their right mind. --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8cBx7Y3r/tLQmfWcRAq1CAKCSEBqbh3/XOXnJNsBtRRUVMLvPUgCfUeEE cJY1PH34BAFyhFMWE9+OMd4= =D5EF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020217221123.A48670>