Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:39:31 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupdate xorg-server Message-ID: <49C47D93.8080902@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090321014413.42ce80b2@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <ab7b49bc0903191321n651b86d6i2035280867650780@mail.gmail.com> <20090319211530.GA27605@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <ab7b49bc0903200814r5f8a6281tacca690869848b7@mail.gmail.com> <49C3D104.50307@gmail.com> <ab7b49bc0903201504x126b3daas5944cb096829c0e@mail.gmail.com> <20090321014413.42ce80b2@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > > IMO this doesn't make any sense. If portupgrade is failing on a port > where manual "make install" works, then portupgrade simply has a bug. > Any port upgrading tool belongs in a port, because it's more important > that it responds to changes in the ports system than changes in the > base system. > > As to upgrading piecemeal rather than with -a, I don't see how that > helps, and it may actually make things worse by not building in > dependency order. > _______________________________________________ > > As to the first part of your msg, what you said doesn't make any sense to me either. Never did I claim portupgrade fails where a normal make install would succeed. I would appreciate it if you could take my example as I state it instead adding stuff to make it sound implausible. Thanks. When you're doing a massive update, and you run into to depedancy issues, you'll know what I'm talking. Also after you get some experience in ports, you'll be able to understand that you can't depend on it compiling all the time. Want an example? Try compiling misc/wanpipe w/ misc/zaptel right now and tell me how far you get. Doing a portupgrade -a on system w/ 1000+ packages installed and there's a pretty good chance you'll run into more than one issue with something like that or it's lesser cousin. Upgrading in smaller chunks is easier. It's actually a fairly common principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer_algorithm One practical example is xorg 1.4 --> 1.5 a lot of us had issues with a couple months ago or whenever it was. Many users wrote in after doing something like a portupgrade -a and blaming their display problem from xorg on whatever WM they happened to be using. Had they done it in smaller segments, they would easily be able to identify source. And no, it doesn't bring you into dependency hell, it brings you out of it easier. Hope that clears up the confusion for you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C47D93.8080902>