Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:48:59 +0000 From: Mark Dixon <mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk> To: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> Cc: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net> Subject: Re: Large port updates Message-ID: <09F00907-4889-11D9-9C8D-000A95C1B5C0@markdnet.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041207180426.764745D04@ptavv.es.net> References: <20041207180426.764745D04@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7 Dec 2004, at 18:04, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >> It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why >> not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the >> way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there >> either, its insanity). > > The vast number of interdependencies in Gnome do make upgrading a pain, > but the 2.8 upgrade has a -restart option, so you don't have to start > over. > Okay, thats sounds like a vast improvement. However, what do you do if you don't have all of the gnome desktop installed - maybe just a few libraries to support some application under X. Will the script still work? Is portupgrade safe then? Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBtgkZLqgJ90OcaiARAqeRAJ4zIc/FbcdHmwliSPyljERMgh0oCwCgiPb0 Z1V4A2qtGWFTeNGgpmlBsco= =yqcU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?09F00907-4889-11D9-9C8D-000A95C1B5C0>