portupdate xorg-server

Adam Vande More amvandemore at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 22:39:58 PDT 2009

RW wrote:
> IMO this doesn't make any sense. If portupgrade is failing on a port
> where manual "make install" works, then portupgrade simply has a bug.
> Any port upgrading tool belongs in a port, because it's more important
> that it responds to changes in the ports system than changes in the
> base system. 
> As to upgrading piecemeal rather than with -a, I don't see how that
> helps, and it may actually make things worse by not building in
> dependency order.
> _______________________________________________
As to the first part of your msg, what you said doesn't make any sense 
to me either.  Never did I claim portupgrade fails where a normal make 
install would succeed.  I would appreciate it if you could take my 
example as I state it instead adding stuff to make it sound 
implausible.  Thanks.  When you're doing a massive update, and you run 
into to depedancy issues, you'll know what I'm talking.  Also after you 
get some experience in ports, you'll be able to understand that you 
can't depend on it compiling all the time.  Want an example?  Try 
compiling misc/wanpipe w/ misc/zaptel right now and tell me how far you 
get.  Doing a portupgrade -a on system w/ 1000+ packages installed and 
there's a pretty good chance you'll run into more than one issue with  
something like that or it's lesser cousin.

Upgrading in smaller chunks is easier.  It's actually a fairly common 


One practical example is xorg 1.4 --> 1.5 a lot of us had issues with a 
couple months ago or whenever it was.  Many users wrote in after doing 
something like a portupgrade -a and blaming their display problem from 
xorg on whatever WM they happened to be using.  Had they done it in 
smaller segments, they would easily be able to identify source.  And no, 
it doesn't bring you into dependency hell, it brings you out of it 
easier.   Hope that clears up the confusion for you.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list