Portupgrade Package Question

Thomas D. Dean tomdean at speakeasy.org
Sat Jul 9 20:04:19 UTC 2011

On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 21:45 +0200, Polytropon wrote:

> If I understood everything correctly, CVS (csup) and portsnap
> do both follow "the one tree" which gets frequently updated,
> and by the tag specified above you'll always get the current
> version of the tree. Getting older versions (e. g. the RELEASE
> tree) involves specifying a different tag, or loading it from
> the installation media directly.
> The difference is that changes in the ports tree are reflected
> much faster in the CVS method than in the portsnap approach,
> which may "lag" a bit. However, portsnap seems to work faster
> and to perform better than CVS. It's also worth mentioning that
> it seems to fit better to the "building cycle" of the -stable
> ports to become precompiled packages (that you request using
> the -PP parameter, similar to the use of pkg_add -r in case of
> installation instead of update).
> But if you require the most recent ports tree, using CVS seems
> to be the better method. As you're updating binary, but with
> using the ports tree (portupgrade relies on that, pkg_add for
> example doesn't), you should make sure to always have the
> current version if you follow the stable OS branch.

I have always built ports from the source.  I decided to try binary
ports for things I have not modified.

I cannot seem to get portupgrade to use the definitions I set in

For the most recent try, I have

#   OS_PATCHLEVEL:	""		"-p8"
#   OS_PLATFORM:	"i386"		"amd64"
#   OS_PKGBRANCH:	"7-current"	"6.1-release"

# Useful predefined functions:
#  localbase()
#    Returns LOCALBASE.

But, portupgrade still tries to fetch from 8.2-release.

If I want to use binary ports it looks like I need to zap the ports tree
and recreate it with portsnap.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list