From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 12:36:54 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560BB106564A for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:36:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from coco@executive-computing.de) Received: from mail.moehre.org (mail.moehre.org [195.96.35.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AC58FC1A for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:36:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.moehre.org (unknown [195.96.35.7]) by mail.moehre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5718B141E for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:36:53 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.962 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=0.038, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mail.moehre.org ([195.96.35.7]) by mail.moehre.org (mail.moehre.org [195.96.35.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DgfmvdS1UiJz for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:36:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.100.30] (p54B0DFAF.dip.t-dialin.net [84.176.223.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: coco@executive-computing.de) by mail.moehre.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A40F8B141B for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:36:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D51389E.6040803@executive-computing.de> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:35:42 +0100 From: Marco Steinbach User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4D50217A.6030700@inbox.lv> <44aai7vh5b.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <4D511D49.4010704@inbox.lv> <44tyge7n5f.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <44tyge7n5f.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Follow a port of a specific major verion X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:36:54 -0000 Lowell Gilbert wrote on 08.02.2011 12:59: > Mikael Bak writes: > >> I was not aware I could just install the same software over the other >> without first removing it. Shouldn't I do that? I would not want to end >> up with a broken software or a broken ports database. > > No, you want to remove the old port before installing the new one. But > you can *build* the new port before removing the old one. The OP should keep an eye on dependencies, though. A good foot-shooter is updating one port, and then, during updating a different port having to install a newer version of a port they both depend on. Which might require a rebuild of the original port, resulting in having, at best, double-downtime of a service. Incidentially, I ran into this just right now, so I felt compelled to state what might seem obious :) [...] MfG CoCo PS: I seem to remember devel/pcre being a good candidate for that with postfix and some other ports.