Large port updates

[Kris Kennaway]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, mark at markdnet.demon.co.uk wrote:
> cmt at burggraben.net wrote:
> 
> > Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107:
> > : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8
> 
> Last time this happened, this is what caused my to deinstall gnome. THe upgrade script could take weeks to run on a reasonable spec machine because it insisted on rebuilding all sorts of stuff. You couldn't stop it, or it would start over.

So install from packages instead of ports, if you don't like to
compile things yourself.  Taking "weeks to run" is an extreme
exaggeration though, unless your "reasonable spec machine" is a 486.

> 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).

That doesn't make a lot of sense - you have to compile the same amount
of code whether it's in 5 packages or 20.  Regardless, it's the
decision the gnome project has made, and it's not up to the freebsd
project to do it differently.

Kris

P.S. Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your emails may be
easily read.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20041207/598ee280/attachment.bin