upgrading ports

Michael Nottebrock michaelnottebrock at gmx.net
Sat Aug 7 07:52:02 PDT 2004

On Saturday 07 August 2004 13:38, Dancho Penev wrote:

> Once again, don't get me wrong, I haven't anything against portupgrade,
> but I'm feeling very well with "make deinstall" or "make install", so
> why don't we have "make upgrade" for instance ? I'm working on something
> similar and I just wonder why nobody was done this before, it's not a
> big challenge, just a couple of lines.

Actually it is a big challenge, and that's exactly why there is portupgrade. 
Just an automated make deinstall/install won't do - it will severely mess up 
recorded dependencies in your pkgdb, won't care for about updated shared 
libraries, won't make backups before uninstalling, etc etc etc.

Cut short: You _want_ to use portupgrade. It comes free with every ports tree, 
so there's no reason to be uncomfortable about it.

   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20040807/42e22f62/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list