Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:12:48 -0500 From: "illoai@gmail.com" <illoai@gmail.com> To: "Joel Hatton" <freebsd-questions@auscert.org.au> Cc: "Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier@digitaltorque.ca>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the art of pkgdb -F Message-ID: <d7195cff0703282012p10cf46ffg361c052f8dd13d09@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200703290129.l2T1TIoN068066@app.auscert.org.au> References: <20070329003400.GV11147@tigger.digitaltorque.ca> <200703290129.l2T1TIoN068066@app.auscert.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28/03/07, Joel Hatton <freebsd-questions@auscert.org.au> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:34:00 -0400, "Michael P. Soulier" wrote: > > > >Now, I've been upgrading ports via > > > >portupgrade -R <port> > > > >as suggested in the handbook. As -R upgrades only those packages that require > >those supplied, and not those that it requires, would that cause it? > > Be careful with your syntax: '-R' isn't consistent between pkg_info and > portupgrade: Running 'pkg_info -R' will downward recurse, or show > dependencies of the port in question, but 'portupgrade -R' will upward > recurse and upgrade every port on which it depends - which often causes a > _lot_ of ports to be rebuilt and is, in fact, the opposite of your > description above. I've been caught by this before... In fact, as frequently the build looks for a binary, and portupgrade checks /var/db/pkg there can be some quite exciting results from a portupgrade -R if you have alternate dependancies. -- --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7195cff0703282012p10cf46ffg361c052f8dd13d09>