Mike Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 27 September 2010, [email protected] 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 If your ports tree is very much out of date 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? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
