Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:16:26 +0100 From: Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Free BSD 8.1 Message-ID: <201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4ca03df2.lQjjNnRah4BJhw4Y%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20100926123019.GA41450@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4C9F3BBA.2060809@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4ca03df2.lQjjNnRah4BJhw4Y%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 27 September 2010, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install > 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install > what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding > distfiles; and finally build -- from release-corresponding ports -- > any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default > OPTION settings. =A0That approach should avoid most nasty surprises > while getting things set up and working. =A0_After_ everything is > installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to > consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already- > installed-and-working package collection will provide a fallback > in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a=20 security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then=20 it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of=20 dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending=20 on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well=20 and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out.=20 The "little and often" approach of keeping the ports tree up to date=20 could be less traumatic. =2D-=20 Mike Clarke
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2>