Keeping Ports synchronised with Packages
kstewart at owt.com
Thu Apr 22 10:40:02 PDT 2004
On Thursday 22 April 2004 08:01 am, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:57:53PM +0100, Richard Bradley wrote:
> Absolutely. Now, where are you getting the pre-compiled packages
> from? If it's from one of the 4-Disk FreeBSD CD Rom sets, then yes,
> you're going to have problems with file versions as there have been
> updates to a number of major software systems gone into the ports
> tree in the 4 months or so since 4.9-RELEASE.
> On the other hand, if you're downloading the packages from the ftp
> sites, you should be within a week or two of the latest versions.
> Take a look at, eg:
> (if you want to access that server for your FTP'ing needs, it's also
> known as ftp2.uk.freebsd.org)
> That shows you all of the packages for 4-STABLE that have been
> updated since 4.9-RELEASE came out. (There's a similar directory
> structure for the 5.x packages). Looks like there was a new batch
> produced on 11th April, including the KDE packages:
> That gets you kde-3.2.1_1 The ports tree is currently at kde-3.2.2 --
> like you say, a minor version number behind. Unfortunately, that's
> just the way things are: the project only has a limited capacity to
> keep compiling new packages when ports get updated, especially since
> they're producing packages for both 4.x and 5.x at the moment. Also,
> sometime soon the new package set for 4.10-RELEASE will be produced,
> which means compiling *everything* in the ports tree from scratch.
> You should be able to get all of the dependencies of KDE etc. as
> precompiled packages -- using:
> # pkg_add -r kde
> will try and download everything required.
> I should note that you're particularly unlucky right now with both
> KDE and Gnome having gone through some major updates just recently.
> Usually the lag between the port coming out and the updated package
> doesn't affect such a large proportion of all of the available
A fix for kde is on Fruitsalad
Last stable version build
i386 4-STABLE (Posted Tue April 20 01:47 CET 2004)
While I was downloading the source tarballs from a mirror in Oregon, I
updated the computer I am using right now defining the packagsite
> > If I use `portupgrade -PP` (i.e. forcing it to use packages) it
> > (almost) always fails because there are never precompiled packages
> > of the same version as my (cvsup'ed) ports tree.
> > In the same way, `portupgrade -P` (i.e. try to use packages) is
> > equivalent to `portupgrade` (i.e. compile from source) because of
> > the version lag in the packages as compared to the ports.
> > One solution might be to get cvsup to check out slightly older
> > versions of the port tree that matches up with the available
> > packages. However this doesn't seem possible.
> As someone else commented, you can hold various packages inside
> pkgtools.conf -- that means portupgrade won't even attempt to upgrade
> them. Or you can tell portupgrade that you want certain ports to be
> installed either preferentially or exclusively via packages -- see
> the section in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf on USE_PKGS and
> USE_PKGS_ONLY. If you enter the names of the really big packages that
> you never want to spend time compiling in one or other of those
> arrays, then you can let portupgrade upgrade everything else around
> them. You will find that certain ports are marked as 'ignored' if
> they depend on a port where there isn't the latest version of a
> package available yet, but that includes a lot of ports that wouldn't
> need to be upgraded anyhow.
> You can certainly check out a backdated version of the ports tree via
> cvsup(1) -- eg. to get the ports tree from 1st April just add:
> *default date=2004.04.01.12.00
> to your supfile.
More information about the freebsd-questions