Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 4 May 2011 18:11:06 -0400
From:      Jerry <>
To:        FreeBSD <>
Subject:   Re: A possibly odd upgrade question
Message-ID:  <20110504181106.4ea5b8e7@scorpio>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <20110504142626.539c2b6f@scorpio> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 04 May 2011 22:51:05 +0100
Chris Whitehouse <> articulated:

> I second Jerry, portmanager is indeed a very effective tool, it's
> simple and thorough and probably has as good a chance of fixing ports
> issues as anything. Or used to, I've been trying out tinderbox so
> haven't used it for a year or so.
> If you do use portmanager there are a few tricks you can do to make
> it effectively unattended.
> However, doesn't -u -f mean rebuild all dependencies of all ports? In 
> which case wouldn't it be just as effective and cleaner for the OP to 
> nuke the lot and rebuild, particularly in view of the retasked
> purpose.

Yes, from the man pages it states it will rebuild all packages and their
dependencies. I simply include the "l" so he would have a log file
available if something did go wrong.

In any case, I thought it might save him some trouble rebuilding his
system. There are some ports; however, that will not build correctly
unless the program is first removed from the system. Obviously not a
friendly concept; however, a reality. The OP would have to remove them
first I suppose before doing a force rebuild. Maybe just doing a
"pkg_delete -adv" would be a better idea.

Jerry ✌

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies, ignored
or reported as Spam. Do not CC this poster.

Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.

Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules.

	Following the rules will not get the job done.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>