Recent massive port update.
jhell at DataIX.net
Sun Feb 7 13:20:17 UTC 2010
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:05, 000.fbsd@ wrote:
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 06/02/2010 09:40, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
>>> Shouldn't there be an entry in UPDATING, that "jpeg" has to be
>>> rebuildet first?
>>> I rebuilded everything - but i have no idea about the order aof port
>> Actually that's not necessary in this case entirely because the commit
>> was so large. Every port that needs to be rebuilt because it depends
>> on libjpeg has had it's PORTREVISION bumped. That means that if you
>> just do a 'portupgrade -a' or 'portmaster -a' the right thing will
>> happen automatically.
> No metter if there is revision bump or not, it should be in UPDATING as it
> was in case of jpeg-7.
> AFFECTS: users of graphics/jpeg
> AUTHOR: dinoex at FreeBSD.org
> The IJG jpeg library has been updated to version 7.0. Please rebuild all
> ports that depend on it.
> Miroslav Lachman
Weighing this out among the should not be and should be.
Here is my opinion.
An addition to UPDATING for a large scale update of ports due to a port
that spans across a majority of the tree is needed because:
1). Not everyone is subscribed to ports at .
2). It touches a large amount of users and ports.
3). Reference points at which times/dates specific updates has
There might be other reasons or 2 that could be invalidated above by
opinion and how you handle your own ports but fact of the matter is 
not everyone is subscribed to ports@ and when they update the ports tree
there is nothing stating specifically whats going on. UPDATING is a central
Thanks to the work of dinoex he has taken it upon himself to ensure that
everyone upgrades go as smoothly as possible but not everything will
always be perfect. This is quite the responsibility to take on and a
applause should be in order.
Best wishes and great dwellings,
More information about the freebsd-ports