Upgrading a Port on 8.2

Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 17:26:06 UTC 2014


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Guido Falsi <mad at madpilot.net> wrote:

> On 02/18/14 08:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:51:51 -0800
> > Hi,
> >
> > Doug Hardie <bc979 at lafn.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 17 February 2014, at 21:43, Erich Dollansky
> >> <erichsfreebsdlist at alogt.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:07:43 -0800
> >>> Doug Hardie <bc979 at lafn.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have an older, but basically clean, install of 8.2 on a
> >>>> production system.  It has a few ports that were installed back
> >>>> when 8.2 was new.  However, I need to add pdftk.  Pkg_add did that
> >>>> nicely. HOwever, it added version 1.44.  The history for pdftk
> >>>> shows that a major problem was fixed in 1.45 and I am encountering
> >>>> that problem and need to upgrade.  Portupgrade pdftk does
> >>>> nothing.  It seems to decide that the latest version is 1.44.
> >>>> However, on a 9.2 system, I get a much higher version number.  Is
> >>>> there any way to determine if 1.44 is the latest version that will
> >>>> run with 8.2 or is there another way I need to upgrade to ports
> >>>> files?  Its my understanding that cvsup is no longer with us.
> >>>
> >>> how I understand your problem, the behaviour of the machine is
> >>> normal as you kept the old ports tree.
> >>>
> >>> If you would like to have a newer version of a port, you would have
> >>> to update the ports tree first. The big but is then that you will
> >>> have to update all installed ports too and then install the program
> >>> you need.
> >>>
> >>> If you have real bad luck, this could force you even to upgrade from
> >>> 8.2 to 8.4. So, be careful.
> >>
> >> Thats what I expected, but the question remains:  how?  Cvsup I
> >> believe is no longer with us and purtupgrade apparently doesn't do
> >> that either.
> >
> > I would suggest that you take ftp to download the current ports tree.
> > It contains then a current svn. You would not need svn after this as
> > the ports are downloaded by using fetch.
> >
> > Of course, for further updates, I would recommend moving to svn.
>
> This is more a personal opinion, but for general production use(not
> development) portsnap is a much better choice than subversion. portsnap
> is usually not more than one hour behind the subversion repository, so,
> if you don't really need the latest changes, it's quite fresh and much
> faster at downloading updates. It's also included in base also on older
> releases (10 and up have svnlite included in base too).
>
> just an opinion though.
>

In general, I agree wholeheartedly.

There is one potential issue with using portsnap that will only be
significant to a very few, but might unpleasantly surprise someone.

Unlike svn, portsnap will overwrite the ports tree and eliminate any local
modifications. Most people don't have any of these, so for most, this is
not an issue. People just need to be aware of it if they do as the files
are gone after running portsnap, making recovery a pain.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list