why "-R" und not "-r"?

[Vasil Dimov]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:21PM +0100, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
> Hi There,
> 
> one question about this antry in UPDATING:
> 
> ,----
> | 20061221:
> |    AFFECTS: users of security/gnupg
> |    AUTHOR: kuriyama at FreeBSD.org
> | 
> |    The security/gnupg port was upgraded to 2.0.1 (with securty fix)
> |    and good-old gnupg-1.4.6 was repocopied to security/gnupg1.
> | 
> |    Both of security/gnupg (2.x) and security/gnupg1 (1.4.x) are
> |    designed not to conflict with each other.  So you can use
> |    security/gnupg1 for gpg(1), and use security/gnupg for gpg2(1)
> |    commands.
> | 
> |    All directly dependents are $PORTREVISION bumped, so portupgrade -R
> |    gnupg will works fine.  After portupgrade, you will have both of
> |    gnupg-2.0.1 and gnupg-1.4.6.
> `----
> 
> 
> Why "portupgrade -R gnup"? Isn't it "portupgrade -r gnup"? 

Looks like a typo. It should be portupgrade -r gnupg.

-- 
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF at dv
%
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one.
                -- Benjamin Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20061227/fdde07cf/attachment.pgp