Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:04:46 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupdate xorg-server Message-ID: <20090321170446.78f8504a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <49C47D93.8080902@gmail.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> <49C47D93.8080902@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:39:31 -0500 Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And I would appreciate it if you actually read what I posted before you accuse me of making things up. My reply wasn't to your email it was to Neil Hogan, who did say that. > 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. >.. > Hope that clears up the confusion for you. Since you are the one that sees problems, and I find the whole thing to be generally straightforward, I don't really think you are in a position to be condescending. Many problems that are seen after a portupgrade -R will go away after after a "portupgrade -a", so why waste time in debugging them. In my experience a failed "portupgrade -a" scarcely ever leads to runtime problems and most build problems are resolved after running csup. Personally I don't find fault-finding signifiantly harder after a "portupgrade -a" than after a "portupgrade -R" YMMV. The really important thing is to read UPDATING, but if you don't update frequently enough you can run into a state where it's difficult to conflate the entries into a single recipe. If I ever let things slide to the point where I was faced with two really complex metaport updates, I *might* be tempted to take the tree back to the point when the first update stablised and do them sequentially in that way.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090321170446.78f8504a>