Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:53:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F.Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Cc: rfg@tristatelogic.com Subject: docs/172314: man page for portupgrade doesn't specify upgrade ordering Message-ID: <20121003235330.2C09E5083F@segfault.tristatelogic.com> Resent-Message-ID: <201210040000.q9400PJh040973@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 172314 >Category: docs >Synopsis: man page for portupgrade doesn't specify upgrade ordering >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Thu Oct 04 00:00:24 UTC 2012 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Ronald F. Guilmette >Release: FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE amd64 >Organization: entr0py >Environment: System: 8.3-RELEASE amd64 >Description: The man page for portupgrade fails to specify the ordering in which ports will be upgraded, e.g. when the -a option is used or whenever two or port ports are named on the command line. (Perhaps naively, I would _guess_ that portupgrade might be intelligent enough to order the set of ports it is asked to upgrade so that ports that are depended upon are upgraded _before_ the ports that depend on them. But is portupgrade _actually_ this intelligent? I hope so but I don't knwo and the man page does not appear to say.) >How-To-Repeat: man portupgrade >Fix: Document whatever ordering portupgrade imposes upon its work. If the order of port upgrading is determined merely alphabetically (in the case of -a) or based on the order in which ports to be upgraded are named on the command line, then the man page should say that. >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121003235330.2C09E5083F>