Re: portupdate xorg-server

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:39:31 -0500
Adam Vande More <amvandemore@xxxxxxxxx> 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.






_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Portinstall question
    ... I was just wondering why you would want to use portinstall to ... install new software, rather than: ... portinstall is just portupgrade by another name. ... an already installed port. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: First cvsup in sometime, and now Im hosed
    ... > leaving me without, well, portupgrade. ... newer/more-secure version of OpenSSL and installed the port ... install was from a 4.9-REL CD and I keep the updates coming ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Portinstall question
    ... >> install method, there isn't any guesswork as to what name to ... > portinstall is just portupgrade by another name. ... an already installed port. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Updating Ports on Production Servers
    ... won't quite work if the flags you want to ... # opportunity to override settings in port Makefiles. ... >> The bad part about using portupgrade is that you can't specify any ...
    (freebsd-isp)
  • Re: portupdate xorg-server
    ... Any port upgrading tool belongs in a port, ... Never did I claim portupgrade fails where a normal make install would succeed. ...
    (freebsd-questions)