Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: Hmm, let me cite your letter in this thread: This isn't a court of law. :) sysutils/portconf does not have that limitation. If you specify flags using that method, they will always be used. FYI, Doug = So, one can mistakenly think that always here really means ALWAYS (i.e., for every port). However many ports use that funny OPTIONS (in the ports sense) which completely ignore make's WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx environment variables, so always isn't correct word here I suppose. I probably should have said, will always work like a a variable in make.conf would. If I caused confusion, I apologize. As for the other things you mentioned, I'm sure that the respective authors would welcome patches to correct the shortcomings you perceive. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Hello! On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Doug Barton wrote: I've tried to use sysutils/portconf, but found that it still doesn't give an universal solution: I think we need to be careful what our expectations of universal are with a ports tree as large, and a userbase as diverse, as what we have. However ... Hmm, let me cite your letter in this thread: = From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 23 23:56:09 2006 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:51:52 -0700 From: Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED], Todorov @ Paladin [EMAIL PROTECTED], freebsd-stable freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:07:45PM +0300, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? It depends. If options are OPTIONS (in the ports sense), they are saved and independent of portupgrade. If options are makefile options specified in pkgtools.conf, they are only taken into accont if the port is (re)build explicitly; they are not taken into account if a port is (re)built as a dependency of another port. In plain text: if port B has options in pkgtools.conf, and port A has B as its dependency, and you portinstall/portupgrade A, B will be built (if needs be) without pkgtools.conf options. Be careful. sysutils/portconf does not have that limitation. If you specify flags using that method, they will always be used. FYI, Doug = So, one can mistakenly think that always here really means ALWAYS (i.e., for every port). However many ports use that funny OPTIONS (in the ports sense) which completely ignore make's WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx environment variables, so always isn't correct word here I suppose. 1) it doesn't work if /usr/ports is a link to another location. Sure it does. You just have to be smarter about how you specify the triggers in make.conf. :) I have the following: .if !empty(.CURDIR:M/mnt/slave/space/ports*) # Begin portconf settings ... Works like a charm. Sure this (changing the body of the Do not touch these lines block ;) works! However portconf's +DISPLAY message doesn't even suggest that trigger in /etc/make.conf should be changed according to the `realpath /usr/ports/`. BTW, can this trigger line be changed in order to work in both standard case (/usr/ports is a port directory itself) and case when /usr/ports is a symlink to the actual port tree? I don't know make's language enough to embed `realpath /usr/ports/` to the trigger, sorry. 2) it still doesn't affect OPTIONS (in the ports sense); try e.g. the following: If it's not working at all to start with (as you specified above), then this additional example of brokenness is meaningless. Additionally, OPTIONS ignores settings in the environment at all times to start with. It's easy enough to test this for yourself by placing something in make.conf. Yes, OPTIONS ignore settings in the make's environment, and it's confusing. At least option's default could follow WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx, so I'd expect e.g. SNMP support to be checked when /etc/make.conf contains WITH_SNMP=yes To add even more confusion, OPTIONS _do_ obey shell's (not make's) environment variables: cd /usr/ports/net/quagga WITH_SNMP=yes make rmconfig config correctly checks SNMP support! So (at least, from consistency POV) I think that OPTIONS should obey make's WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx environment variables in the same way as they obey shell's variables. The more perfect solution, I think, would be to make those options (set via both make's and shell's WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx variables) unchangeable in OPTIONS dialog (paint them grey as Windows does? Not so unreasonable I think). So in the case when _all_ menu items have appropriate WITH_xxx / WITHOUT_xxx settings, the entire menu dialog could be skipped and port installation could be made unattended. Wouldn't that be nice? hth, Doug Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Hello! On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: It depends. If options are OPTIONS (in the ports sense), they are saved and independent of portupgrade. If options are sysutils/portconf does not have that limitation. If you specify flags using that method, they will always be used. True. The implementation is also smart -- it doesn't spam make(1) environment when not necessary. Thanks! I've tried to use sysutils/portconf, but found that it still doesn't give an universal solution: 1) it doesn't work if /usr/ports is a link to another location. Try e.g. the following configuration: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls -l /usr/ports lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Aug 27 00:27 /usr/ports - ftp/ports [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd /usr/ports/net/quagga [EMAIL PROTECTED] realpath . /usr/ftp/ports/net/quagga [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep quagga /usr/local/etc/ports.conf net/quagga: WITH_SNMP=yes [EMAIL PROTECTED] make -V WITH_SNMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ports infrastructure itself works OK in this configuration, but sysutils/portconf does not. 2) it still doesn't affect OPTIONS (in the ports sense); try e.g. the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] realpath . /usr/ports/net/quagga [EMAIL PROTECTED] rm -rf /var/db/ports/quagga [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep quagga /usr/local/etc/ports.conf net/quagga: WITH_SNMP=yes [EMAIL PROTECTED] make You'll see the options menu, and SNMP support will be unchecked, so WITH_SNMP will be ignored by the port. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: I've tried to use sysutils/portconf, but found that it still doesn't give an universal solution: I think we need to be careful what our expectations of universal are with a ports tree as large, and a userbase as diverse, as what we have. However ... 1) it doesn't work if /usr/ports is a link to another location. Sure it does. You just have to be smarter about how you specify the triggers in make.conf. :) I have the following: .if !empty(.CURDIR:M/mnt/slave/space/ports*) # Begin portconf settings ... Works like a charm. 2) it still doesn't affect OPTIONS (in the ports sense); try e.g. the following: If it's not working at all to start with (as you specified above), then this additional example of brokenness is meaningless. Additionally, OPTIONS ignores settings in the environment at all times to start with. It's easy enough to test this for yourself by placing something in make.conf. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:51:52PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:07:45PM +0300, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? It depends. If options are OPTIONS (in the ports sense), they are saved and independent of portupgrade. If options are makefile options specified in pkgtools.conf, they are only taken into accont if the port is (re)build explicitly; they are not taken into account if a port is (re)built as a dependency of another port. In plain text: if port B has options in pkgtools.conf, and port A has B as its dependency, and you portinstall/portupgrade A, B will be built (if needs be) without pkgtools.conf options. Be careful. sysutils/portconf does not have that limitation. If you specify flags using that method, they will always be used. True. The implementation is also smart -- it doesn't spam make(1) environment when not necessary. Thanks! Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer pgp0L5O42e3js.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:07:45PM +0300, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? It depends. If options are OPTIONS (in the ports sense), they are saved and independent of portupgrade. If options are makefile options specified in pkgtools.conf, they are only taken into accont if the port is (re)build explicitly; they are not taken into account if a port is (re)built as a dependency of another port. In plain text: if port B has options in pkgtools.conf, and port A has B as its dependency, and you portinstall/portupgrade A, B will be built (if needs be) without pkgtools.conf options. Be careful. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer pgpoxLj6jY7P6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:07:45PM +0300, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? It depends. If options are OPTIONS (in the ports sense), they are saved and independent of portupgrade. If options are makefile options specified in pkgtools.conf, they are only taken into accont if the port is (re)build explicitly; they are not taken into account if a port is (re)built as a dependency of another port. In plain text: if port B has options in pkgtools.conf, and port A has B as its dependency, and you portinstall/portupgrade A, B will be built (if needs be) without pkgtools.conf options. Be careful. sysutils/portconf does not have that limitation. If you specify flags using that method, they will always be used. FYI, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:23:00PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: In practice, however, pretty much all software nowadays depends on shared libraries, so it's reasonable to do a pkg_delete -a after upgrading to a new major version of FreeBSD, and then reinstall all of the ports you use once you've finished upgrading. Run pkg_info before the upgrade and keep track of this output to help you remember what ports you've got installed... As a possible point of clarification, my comments earlier (and, I suspect similar comments of others) were not meant to imply that one should not rebuild ports after a major upgrade, but only that one need not do so _before_ upgrading. [...probably ... it worked for me ... YMMV ... if it is a critical package, then it wouldn't hurt to rebuild it first ... usw.] -- greg byshenk - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Leiden, NL ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Aug 23, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Greg Byshenk wrote: As a possible point of clarification, my comments earlier (and, I suspect similar comments of others) were not meant to imply that one should not rebuild ports after a major upgrade, but only that one need not do so _before_ upgrading. [...probably ... it worked for me ... YMMV ... if it is a critical package, then it wouldn't hurt to rebuild it first ... usw.] Oh, certainly-- FreeBSD's COMPAT stuff will let you run binaries compiled against an older version of FreeBSD just fine for almost all circumstances. However, as soon as you try to install a new port which depends on something already installed, or upgrade anything, you pretty much really need to upgrade *everything* to be sure that you don't compile new executables which depend on a mixture of COMPAT and current libraries... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Chuck Swiger: FreeBSD's COMPAT stuff will let you run binaries compiled against an older version of FreeBSD just fine for almost all circumstances. However, as soon as you try to install a new port which depends on something already installed, or upgrade anything, you pretty much really need to upgrade *everything* to be sure that you don't compile new executables which depend on a mixture of COMPAT and current libraries... Yep. Also beware of make delete-old and make delete-old-libs, and ports that build differently depending on the OS version... Helge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Thanks to all who responded for the collective good advice. On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Greg Byshenk wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:52:02PM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 21.08.2006 um 18:19 schrieb Ian Smith: I recently (without drama) upgraded a 5.4-RELEASE system to FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #1: Tue Aug 1 11:11:20 EST 2006 for 'target practice' at least, on the way to 6.1-STABLE I was preparing to portupgrade everything next, when I wondered: a) should I upgrade from RELENG_5 straight to RELENG_6 or should I be stopping off at 6.1-RELEASE along the way first? and I'd go straight to 6-stable. Make sure you have a good backup, even if you stop over at 6.1. I see no reason not to go directly to 6-stable (if that is what you plan to run); I've done it with multiple machines, and just jump right to the 6-stable version that is active on the machines running 6.x. Though I've had no problems, I second the recommendation to have a good backup. Also, if you don't have a known-good 6-stable build, you might want to upgrade to the GENERIC kernel. Thanks. On reflection, I think I'll go via 6.1 (more target practice), use GENERIC if there's any trouble, then to 6-stable as a smaller step. b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? FWIW: a wee Celeron 300, so minimising upgrade build times is desirable. Unless you have business critical apps running (downtime must be minimal), you can wait until you've completed the upgrade to 6- stable, and then run portupgrade -af. If you'd like to run the portupgrade overnight, you might want to define BATCH, and possibly set any port building options in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, otherwise, the port builds will be frequently interrupted by make config questions. Good reminders; this box won't be critical till it's all working .. It shouldn't be necessary to rebuild ports before the upgrade. If there is something running that is critical, you might want to upgrade it first, just be sure, but it probably isn't necessary. I upgraded a workstation with 200+ ports installed, and saw no problems (I can't for certain that nothing was broken before I upgraded the ports, but I experienced no problems). Good to confirm. I haven't so many ports installed that I couldn't start from scratch if it all fell over, so I can play with ports and packages till I finally learn how to use all the tools effectively. Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Ian Smith wrote: It shouldn't be necessary to rebuild ports before the upgrade. If there is something running that is critical, you might want to upgrade [ ... ] Good to confirm. I haven't so many ports installed that I couldn't start from scratch if it all fell over, so I can play with ports and packages till I finally learn how to use all the tools effectively. you *really* want to rebuild anything that uses shared libs from the ports tree, or anything that is a shared lib in the ports tree. Things that only use base system libs and don't do any dyanamic loading of external object code are safe to leave alone, as long as they don't provide shared objects. don't find this out the hard way :-(
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Vivek Khera написа: On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Ian Smith wrote: It shouldn't be necessary to rebuild ports before the upgrade. If there is something running that is critical, you might want to upgrade [ ... ] Good to confirm. I haven't so many ports installed that I couldn't start from scratch if it all fell over, so I can play with ports and packages till I finally learn how to use all the tools effectively. you *really* want to rebuild anything that uses shared libs from the ports tree, or anything that is a shared lib in the ports tree. Things that only use base system libs and don't do any dyanamic loading of external object code are safe to leave alone, as long as they don't provide shared objects. don't find this out the hard way :-( How to find which is dynamically using libs and which application is not? This is something I was wondering before... Thank you in advance. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: [ ... ] How to find which is dynamically using libs and which application is not? You can use ldd. In practice, however, pretty much all software nowadays depends on shared libraries, so it's reasonable to do a pkg_delete -a after upgrading to a new major version of FreeBSD, and then reinstall all of the ports you use once you've finished upgrading. Run pkg_info before the upgrade and keep track of this output to help you remember what ports you've got installed... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Aug 22, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: don't find this out the hard way :-( How to find which is dynamically using libs and which application is not? This is something I was wondering before... Thank you in advance. path of least resistance: upgrade everything. :-) sometimes it is easier to start from scratch with a CD or network install.
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Vivek Khera написа: On Aug 22, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: don't find this out the hard way :-( How to find which is dynamically using libs and which application is not? This is something I was wondering before... Thank you in advance. path of least resistance: upgrade everything. :-) sometimes it is easier to start from scratch with a CD or network install. Something related to this topic - where are the options we choose for a specific port saved? Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:07:45 +0300 From: Todorov @ Paladin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vivek Khera напиÑа: On Aug 22, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Todorov @ Paladin wrote: don't find this out the hard way :-( How to find which is dynamically using libs and which application is not? This is something I was wondering before... Thank you in advance. path of least resistance: upgrade everything. :-) sometimes it is easier to start from scratch with a CD or network install. Something related to this topic - where are the options we choose for a specific port saved? Also - why portupgrade is not always aware of previously chosen options for a port build? This is rather new and not as well publicized as it might have been. As ports are updated, configuration options are stored in /var/ports/PORTNAME/options. If you want to flush this for a port, 'make rmconfig' will do the job. You will be asked for options the next time you make the port, or you can 'make config' on a port to have it ask again. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Hello -stable ones, I recently (without drama) upgraded a 5.4-RELEASE system to FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #1: Tue Aug 1 11:11:20 EST 2006 for 'target practice' at least, on the way to 6.1-STABLE I was preparing to portupgrade everything next, when I wondered: a) should I upgrade from RELENG_5 straight to RELENG_6 or should I be stopping off at 6.1-RELEASE along the way first? and b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? FWIW: a wee Celeron 300, so minimising upgrade build times is desirable. Cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Ian Smith wrote: a) should I upgrade from RELENG_5 straight to RELENG_6 or should I be stopping off at 6.1-RELEASE along the way first? and I'd go with 6.1-REL just to make sure you have a known working release, not that *you* broke something. With RELENG_6 you could luck into a broken system as shipped. b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? You really want to rebuild all your ports across major version changes. If not, over time as you rebuild certain libraries they will be pulling in multiple versions of other shared libs which may be linked to other versions of base system libs and could conflict with each other. Another advantage to rebuilding all the ports is you can clean out all your old 5.x system libraries once done. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
Am 21.08.2006 um 18:19 schrieb Ian Smith: Hello -stable ones, I recently (without drama) upgraded a 5.4-RELEASE system to FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #1: Tue Aug 1 11:11:20 EST 2006 for 'target practice' at least, on the way to 6.1-STABLE I was preparing to portupgrade everything next, when I wondered: a) should I upgrade from RELENG_5 straight to RELENG_6 or should I be stopping off at 6.1-RELEASE along the way first? and I'd go straight to 6-stable. Make sure you have a good backup, even if you stop over at 6.1. b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? FWIW: a wee Celeron 300, so minimising upgrade build times is desirable. Unless you have business critical apps running (downtime must be minimal), you can wait until you've completed the upgrade to 6- stable, and then run portupgrade -af. If you'd like to run the portupgrade overnight, you might want to define BATCH, and possibly set any port building options in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, otherwise, the port builds will be frequently interrupted by make config questions. Stefan -- Stefan Bethke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fon +49 170 346 0140 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:52:02PM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 21.08.2006 um 18:19 schrieb Ian Smith: I recently (without drama) upgraded a 5.4-RELEASE system to FreeBSD 5.5-STABLE #1: Tue Aug 1 11:11:20 EST 2006 for 'target practice' at least, on the way to 6.1-STABLE I was preparing to portupgrade everything next, when I wondered: a) should I upgrade from RELENG_5 straight to RELENG_6 or should I be stopping off at 6.1-RELEASE along the way first? and I'd go straight to 6-stable. Make sure you have a good backup, even if you stop over at 6.1. I see no reason not to go directly to 6-stable (if that is what you plan to run); I've done it with multiple machines, and just jump right to the 6-stable version that is active on the machines running 6.x. Though I've had no problems, I second the recommendation to have a good backup. Also, if you don't have a known-good 6-stable build, you might want to upgrade to the GENERIC kernel. b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? FWIW: a wee Celeron 300, so minimising upgrade build times is desirable. Unless you have business critical apps running (downtime must be minimal), you can wait until you've completed the upgrade to 6- stable, and then run portupgrade -af. If you'd like to run the portupgrade overnight, you might want to define BATCH, and possibly set any port building options in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, otherwise, the port builds will be frequently interrupted by make config questions. It shouldn't be necessary to rebuild ports before the upgrade. If there is something running that is critical, you might want to upgrade it first, just be sure, but it probably isn't necessary. I upgraded a workstation with 200+ ports installed, and saw no problems (I can't for certain that nothing was broken before I upgraded the ports, but I experienced no problems). -- greg byshenk - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Leiden, NL ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.5 to 6.1 upgrade
On Monday 21 August 2006 13:56, Vivek Khera wrote: On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Ian Smith wrote: b) do I need to upgrade all existing ports (way out of date) before the source upgrade, or can I be confident of doing that from 6.1 (-R or -S)? You really want to rebuild all your ports across major version changes. If not, over time as you rebuild certain libraries they will be pulling in multiple versions of other shared libs which may be linked to other versions of base system libs and could conflict with each other. To be clear: yes, you want to rebuild your ports, but only _after_ the upgrade. Before won't help. -David -- To get out of the Metaphysical Void, you either have to grasp the meaning of the universe or roll doubles twice. -Cecil Adams ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
