Free BSD 8.1

perryh at perryh at
Tue Sep 28 07:10:55 UTC 2010

Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2 at> wrote:
> On Monday 27 September 2010, perryh at wrote:
> > I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to
> > install 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree;
> > then install what ports I can from packages and also fetch the
> > corresponding distfiles; and finally build -- from release-
> > corresponding ports -- any that aren't available as packages or
> > where I want non-default OPTION settings.  That approach should
> > avoid most nasty surprises while getting things set up and
> > working.  _After_ everything is installed and configured
> > properly will be plenty soon enough to consider whether any
> > ports need to be updated -- and the already-installed-and-
> > working package collection will provide a fallback in case
> > of trouble trying to build any updated versions.
> The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of
> a security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date
> then it's likely that updating that one port will require a number
> of dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports
> depending on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be
> updated as well and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a
> lot of sorting out.  The "little and often" approach of keeping
> the ports tree up to date could be less traumatic.

and, in this context, your point is?

I'm advocating starting from a stable and self-consistent baseline,
consisting of a release _and_ its corresponding port/package
collection, and then considering whether any updates are needed.
Isn't that orthogonal to the question of whether or not to follow
ports updates, once the baseline has been established?

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list