Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:38:53 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating ports Message-ID: <20071223023853.11ab60e6@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <1922FF4D9B0F57F56811A4DC@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> References: <221c791e0712220839v67a02e78q7cd5519f9b05a210@mail.gmail.com> <200712230119.30705.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <1922FF4D9B0F57F56811A4DC@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:47:52 -0600 Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> wrote: > --On December 23, 2007 1:19:21 AM +0100 Peter Schuller > <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> wrote: > > > > In particular, given a re-build (e.g. upgraded) port X, all ports > > depending on X will also be re-built regardless of whether that is > > required according to the dependency relation. This is handled in > > such a way that it is not dependent on the entire procedure > > completing in one session, as you are with portupgrade (meaning > > it's restartable, as mentioned above). > > > > I don't understand this statement. I have killed portupgrade on > numerous occasions, both locally and remotely, and have never had a > problem restarting later. Something like portupgrade -fr perl is pretty hard to restart efficiently. > > In practice, I find this is the most useful upgrading method. I have > > never been able to use portupgrade for more than a week or two on a > > real machine without running into issues (stale dependencies, > > failed builds due to weak dependency information, etc). > > > > I *really* don't understand this. I can count on one hand the number > of times that I've run into dependency problems with portupgrade, and > all of those were addressed in /usr/port/UPDATING or by simply > deinstalling and reinstalling the port in question. It was really intended to handle major upgrades where multiple UPDATING instructions run together. And back in the days when Gnome upgrades involved wrapping portupgrade in a shell script run in single-user mode with a 50:50 chance of success, portmanager just took it in its stride. I think it is a useful approach because it trades a lot of cpu cycle for me not having to sober-up and think about things - and that always a win. Unfortunately, it's gone without developer support for too long now and I'm getting a bit wary about it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071223023853.11ab60e6>