Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: nightrecon@hotmail.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The ports are really funcional? Message-ID: <4eafef5a.xn0KmWlZlGCMzFaA%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <j8mspj$b2g$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <F2F10B45-7FDF-44F9-B8AC-529004722FF5@gmail.com> <CAHieY7Qr8d6JOMK2w2xDUxu19aw%2BzLxDQfTYgvv7S6YNmWo02g@mail.gmail.com> <20111031040545.cc7d874f.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAO6-GAeVNJDnmk68y3tv4nRrWAf-EbF0Rc2Ft2EQEjaLzmPnLA@mail.gmail.com> <557A48F1-B4A0-407D-A8F1-1502990AE31E@gmail.com> <20111031182528.619b9b83.freebsd@edvax.de> <j8mspj$b2g$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Powell <nightrecon@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have always suspected that unknowingly utilizing the already > out-of-date tree from the initial install is probably what causes > most newcomers' problems with ports. My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build anything. In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised at this finding -- or why "update it first" would be recommended. The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree is distributed with the release. If something won't build on a freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with the local installation. Updating the ports tree can't possibly fix such a problem, whatever it may be, and just complicates the situation by introducing more variables. My approach is to install using the known-good ports tree from the release, get the system operational, and _then_ consider updating.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4eafef5a.xn0KmWlZlGCMzFaA%perryh>