Re: Portupgrade status
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:04:03 -0500, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 04/01/2011 00:51, ill...@gmail.com wrote: No, the -R flag in portmaster tells it to not rebuild ports taht have already been built on this run (I believe from reading man portmaster). The -R flag in portupgrade rebuilds the ports on which the named port depends -R --upward-recursive Act on all those packages required by the given packages as well. (When specified with -F, fetch recursively, including the brand new, uninstalled ports that an upgraded port requires) I don't see any equivalent functionality for portmaster, sadly. This is actually portmaster's default behaviour. So: portupgrade -R foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster foo/bar portupgrade -fRr foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster -fr foo/bar I'm not seeing where portmaster has the portupgrade -R functionality (rebuild this port and those it depends on). portmaster(8) says The focus of this tool is to keep the dependency tracking information for your ports up to date. This allows you to safely update a specific port without having to update all of the ports above it. That would make the default action equivalent to portupgrade's -r option (rebuild this port and all those that depend on it). What have I missed? I agree the quoted passage might admit of more than one interpretation, but here is what I think it's saying: Portmaster will automagically update the dependencies for the port you select (= portupgrade -R). Thus there is no need to update the ports that depend on the one you have selected (= portupgrade -r), since all downstream dependencies will be taken care of by default whenever you run portmaster against any of these upstream ports. Jud -- I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. - Douglas Adams ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On 04/01/2011 00:51, ill...@gmail.com wrote: No, the -R flag in portmaster tells it to not rebuild ports taht have already been built on this run (I believe from reading man portmaster). The -R flag in portupgrade rebuilds the ports on which the named port depends -R --upward-recursive Act on all those packages required by the given packages as well. (When specified with -F, fetch recursively, including the brand new, uninstalled ports that an upgraded port requires) I don't see any equivalent functionality for portmaster, sadly. This is actually portmaster's default behaviour. So: portupgrade -R foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster foo/bar portupgrade -fRr foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster -fr foo/bar There isn't actually a way to do the equivalent of portupgrade foo/bar -- that is, only update the specifically named port, without updating any dependencies as well. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Portupgrade status
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 04/01/2011 00:51, ill...@gmail.com wrote: No, the -R flag in portmaster tells it to not rebuild ports taht have already been built on this run (I believe from reading man portmaster). The -R flag in portupgrade rebuilds the ports on which the named port depends -R --upward-recursive Act on all those packages required by the given packages as well. (When specified with -F, fetch recursively, including the brand new, uninstalled ports that an upgraded port requires) I don't see any equivalent functionality for portmaster, sadly. This is actually portmaster's default behaviour. So: portupgrade -R foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster foo/bar portupgrade -fRr foo/bar is equivalent to portmaster -fr foo/bar I'm not seeing where portmaster has the portupgrade -R functionality (rebuild this port and those it depends on). portmaster(8) says The focus of this tool is to keep the dependency tracking information for your ports up to date. This allows you to safely update a specific port without having to update all of the ports above it. That would make the default action equivalent to portupgrade's -r option (rebuild this port and all those that depend on it). What have I missed? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
so can i just ask, is portmaster or another port upgrading tool recommended over portupgrade now because i'm going to be upgrading all my ports soon and in the 18 months i've been using FreeBSD i've always used portupgrade but sounds like it's best to change now. jamie ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On 3 January 2011 17:54, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@gnix.co.uk wrote: so can i just ask, is portmaster or another port upgrading tool recommended over portupgrade now because i'm going to be upgrading all my ports soon and in the 18 months i've been using FreeBSD i've always used portupgrade but sounds like it's best to change now. jamie Unless you particularly despise some aspect or feature of portupgrade, I can see little point in switching. Portmaster has the advantage of not requiring ruby or an external database, but the disadvan- tage of not having an equivalent of # portupgrade -Rf (at least last time I used it) -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, ill...@gmail.com ill...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 January 2011 17:54, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@gnix.co.uk wrote: so can i just ask, is portmaster or another port upgrading tool recommended over portupgrade now because i'm going to be upgrading all my ports soon and in the 18 months i've been using FreeBSD i've always used portupgrade but sounds like it's best to change now. jamie Unless you particularly despise some aspect or feature of portupgrade, I can see little point in switching. Portmaster has the advantage of not requiring ruby or an external database, but the disadvan- tage of not having an equivalent of # portupgrade -Rf (at least last time I used it) man portmaster reveals [-R] -f always rebuild ports (overrides -i) C- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On 3 January 2011 18:39, Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net wrote: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, ill...@gmail.com ill...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 January 2011 17:54, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@gnix.co.uk wrote: so can i just ask, is portmaster or another port upgrading tool recommended over portupgrade now because i'm going to be upgrading all my ports soon and in the 18 months i've been using FreeBSD i've always used portupgrade but sounds like it's best to change now. jamie Unless you particularly despise some aspect or feature of portupgrade, I can see little point in switching. Portmaster has the advantage of not requiring ruby or an external database, but the disadvan- tage of not having an equivalent of # portupgrade -Rf (at least last time I used it) man portmaster reveals [-R] -f always rebuild ports (overrides -i) No, the -R flag in portmaster tells it to not rebuild ports taht have already been built on this run (I believe from reading man portmaster). The -R flag in portupgrade rebuilds the ports on which the named port depends -R --upward-recursive Act on all those packages required by the given packages as well. (When specified with -F, fetch recursively, including the brand new, uninstalled ports that an upgraded port requires) I don't see any equivalent functionality for portmaster, sadly. Example scenario: firefox is failing to start keeps throwing weird gtk errors, even after rebuilding gtk firefox. So you issue portupgrade -Rf firefox\*. Well, it has fixed stuff in the dim distant past, any way. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 07:51:48PM -0500, ill...@gmail.com wrote: No, the -R flag in portmaster tells it to not rebuild ports taht have already been built on this run (I believe from reading man portmaster). The -R flag in portupgrade rebuilds the ports on which the named port depends Indeed, this -R option is useful. Up-to-now i've not used anything else other than portupgrade but i'll have a look over the man pages of portmaster, etc.; i'll probably continue to use portupgrade for a while though. jamie ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
On 27/12/2010 01:32, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob == Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net writes: Rob Then, the removal of MD5 distinfo broke it and it stayed broken for Rob over a week with no indication given that a fix was in the works. On Rob the other hand, Doug Barton has been very responsive to issues with Rob portmaster and fixed this problem less than 48 hours after it Rob appeared. Hence my recommendation to switch. I switched to portmaster a few months ago after being firmly in the portupgrade camp, and have not regretted it in the slightest. Same here. The biggest conceptual gotcha in switching is that portmaster always reinstalls the ports you tell it to work on, unlike portupgrade which just upgrades what's out of date unless you tell it otherwise. I also have my machines set up with a portmaster.rc like this: # # portmaster global config overrides # NO_BACKUP=Bopt PM_DEL_BUILD_ONLY=pw_dbo ALWAYS_SCRUB_DISTFILES=dopt MAKE_PACKAGE=gopt PM_PACKAGES=first LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR=/usr/ports/packages PM_PACKAGES_LOCAL=pmp_local PM_IGNORE_FAILED_BACKUP_PACKAGE=pm_ignore_failed_backup_package # # That's All Folks! # Which has two good effects: it stops portmaster asking so many questions; and it keeps a local archive of packages of everything it builds and will re-install from that local package repo where an appropriate package is available. Oh, and it removes build dependencies rather than leaving them cluttering up the disk (but it does keep packages of them, so it's quick to reinstall where needed). This saves a lot of compiling if you share your local package repo amongst several machines, or (like I do) you have a lot of churn in installed package sets. I tried doing this sort of thing with portupgrade, but I never could get it to work quite right and I always had to remember to put extra flags on the command line -- with portmaster it just works (tm). Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Portupgrade status
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 27/12/2010 01:32, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob == Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net writes: Rob Then, the removal of MD5 distinfo broke it and it stayed broken for Rob over a week with no indication given that a fix was in the works. On Rob the other hand, Doug Barton has been very responsive to issues with Rob portmaster and fixed this problem less than 48 hours after it Rob appeared. Hence my recommendation to switch. I switched to portmaster a few months ago after being firmly in the portupgrade camp, and have not regretted it in the slightest. Same here. The biggest conceptual gotcha in switching is that portmaster always reinstalls the ports you tell it to work on, unlike portupgrade which just upgrades what's out of date unless you tell it otherwise. I also have my machines set up with a portmaster.rc like this: # # portmaster global config overrides # NO_BACKUP=Bopt PM_DEL_BUILD_ONLY=pw_dbo ALWAYS_SCRUB_DISTFILES=dopt MAKE_PACKAGE=gopt PM_PACKAGES=first LOCAL_PACKAGEDIR=/usr/ports/packages PM_PACKAGES_LOCAL=pmp_local PM_IGNORE_FAILED_BACKUP_PACKAGE=pm_ignore_failed_backup_package # # That's All Folks! # Which has two good effects: it stops portmaster asking so many questions; and it keeps a local archive of packages of everything it builds and will re-install from that local package repo where an appropriate package is available. Oh, and it removes build dependencies rather than leaving them cluttering up the disk (but it does keep packages of them, so it's quick to reinstall where needed). This saves a lot of compiling if you share your local package repo amongst several machines, or (like I do) you have a lot of churn in installed package sets. I tried doing this sort of thing with portupgrade, but I never could get it to work quite right and I always had to remember to put extra flags on the command line -- with portmaster it just works (tm). Also a happy portmaster user. Thanks for the portmaster.rc ideas. For me portupgrade never really worked because I only use port management tools on workstations and I go so long between upgrades I never had any sucess using portupgrade. I also like the fact that portmaster uses only the files that are there anyway. Doug Denault ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status [Was Re: Portmaster general questions and problems]
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 13:42, Bob Hall rjh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:39:58AM -0800, Ron (Lists) wrote: But, due to portupgrade no longer being maintained and failing to work anymore, I'm a bit confused about this. I did a quick google search and saw that someone had stopped maintaining portupgrade, but I also saw things that suggested that other people were maintaining it. The handbook continues to list it ahead of portmanager and portmaster, with no mention that it isn't being maintained. I've never stopped using portupgrade, and it has always worked. Updates come through periodically, two in the past month. For a port that isn't being maintained, it seems to be remarkably well maintained. I assume you are referring to my message from a couple months ago. At the time, the previous maintainer dropped it and transferred it to a mailing list. There had been no commits for around a year and a half. I am personally skeptical of anything maintained by a mailing list, because that seems to frequently lead to patches and bug reports being ignored for months or years. Then, the removal of MD5 distinfo broke it and it stayed broken for over a week with no indication given that a fix was in the works. On the other hand, Doug Barton has been very responsive to issues with portmaster and fixed this problem less than 48 hours after it appeared. Hence my recommendation to switch. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
Rob == Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net writes: Rob Then, the removal of MD5 distinfo broke it and it stayed broken for Rob over a week with no indication given that a fix was in the works. On Rob the other hand, Doug Barton has been very responsive to issues with Rob portmaster and fixed this problem less than 48 hours after it Rob appeared. Hence my recommendation to switch. I switched to portmaster a few months ago after being firmly in the portupgrade camp, and have not regretted it in the slightest. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Portupgrade status
Quoth Randal L. Schwartz on Sunday, 26 December 2010: Rob == Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net writes: Rob Then, the removal of MD5 distinfo broke it and it stayed broken for Rob over a week with no indication given that a fix was in the works. On Rob the other hand, Doug Barton has been very responsive to issues with Rob portmaster and fixed this problem less than 48 hours after it Rob appeared. Hence my recommendation to switch. I switched to portmaster a few months ago after being firmly in the portupgrade camp, and have not regretted it in the slightest. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion What do you see as its primary practical benefits? -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpLbLsbIJyyq.pgp Description: PGP signature
