From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 27 01:44:35 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D43616A417 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:44:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0614113C483 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:44:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 17124 invoked by uid 399); 27 Jul 2007 01:44:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2007 01:44:34 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <46A94E00.8090806@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:32 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt Abahar References: <741883.89656.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <741883.89656.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Keeping Ports and Packages Synchronized X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:44:35 -0000 Kurt Abahar wrote: > --- Doug Barton wrote: > >> Maybe you can describe in more detail what you're >> trying to >> accomplish. Leave out potential solutions, just >> describe what your >> goal is. > > I have a lot of ports installed and it takes a lot of > time to compile them. Therefore, I'm trying to use > packages as much as possible. After updating the ports > tree using portsnap, portupgrade looks for packages > that don't exist yet. Basically, my goal is to avoid > this and have the ports tree update to a state for > which packages have already been built. Ok, that's what I was afraid you were asking for. No such facility exists, and I don't imagine anyone creating one any time soon because it would be VERY hard to accomplish for a large number of reasons. > I apologize if I can't explain it very clearly, > English isn't my native language. Your description was perfect, it was my understanding of it that needed help. :) Regards, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection