Large port updates
Is there a best practice for automated updating large number of interdependant ports? I keep my ports tree up-to-date, and sometimes I wish to install applications that depend on a newer version of an existing one, and fail. My current example is gnome. Recently, whatever I want to install requires gnome2.8 - how to update the giant list of gnome libs apps? portupgrade -r? (but on what package?) What about ports that have dialog boxes which require user intervention? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
Hi Ivan, Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 4:47:23 PM, you Cannot open file C\TXT COOKIES\reply-en.txt: Is there a best practice for automated updating large number of interdependant ports? I keep my ports tree up-to-date, and sometimes I wish to install applications that depend on a newer version of an existing one, and fail. My current example is gnome. Recently, whatever I want to install requires gnome2.8 - how to update the giant list of gnome libs apps? portupgrade -r? (but on what package?) portupgrade -arR should be good... What about ports that have dialog boxes which require user intervention? i don't know exactly, you have to watch and see what's happening.. -- Best regards +--==/\/\==--+ FreeBSD | DanGer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (__)The | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ261701668 | \\\'',)Power | http://danger.homeunix.org |\/ \ ^ To +--==\/\/==--+.\._/_) Serve [ If idiots could fly this place would be an airport. ] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
Quoth Ivan Voras on Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 16:47:23 +0100 Is there a best practice for automated updating large number of interdependant ports? I keep my ports tree up-to-date, and sometimes I wish to install applications that depend on a newer version of an existing one, and fail. portupgrade is what you want. Please, please, please do read the man page and understand what it tells you. Also, you should check the archives for a script I posted sometimes ago (fairly recently). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=*=- www.kierun.org PGP: 009D 7287 C4A7 FD4F 1680 06E4 F751 7006 9DE2 6318 pgp5HQHdEe708.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Large port updates
## Ivan Voras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Is there a best practice for automated updating large number of interdependant ports? I keep my ports tree up-to-date, and sometimes I wish to install applications that depend on a newer version of an existing one, and fail. portupgrade works in most cases, but... My current example is gnome. Recently, whatever I want to install requires gnome2.8 - how to update the giant list of gnome libs apps? Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107: : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8 Gruss, Christoph -- Spare Space ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
Hello, Is there a best practice for automated updating large number of interdependant ports? [..] What about ports that have dialog boxes which require user intervention? you can use /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf to tell portupgrade which options to use when upgrading a certain port. I usually check the makefile of ports I want to install for necessary defines and set these together with BATCH=YES in pkgtools.conf, then use portinstall to install the port and check if it honors the BATCH=YES. Wolfgang ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107: : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8 Last time this happened, this is what caused my to deinstall gnome. THe upgrade script could take weeks to run on a reasonable spec machine because it insisted on rebuilding all sorts of stuff. You couldn't stop it, or it would start over. It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). Mark ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:52:15 + Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107: : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8 Last time this happened, this is what caused my to deinstall gnome. THe upgrade script could take weeks to run on a reasonable spec machine because it insisted on rebuilding all sorts of stuff. You couldn't stop it, or it would start over. It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). The vast number of interdependencies in Gnome do make upgrading a pain, but the 2.8 upgrade has a -restart option, so you don't have to start over. The upgrade is an overnight thing for at least the first pass. On my old 450 MHz K6 it took over a day. But, once I fixed a few problems and restarted the upgrade, it finished up quite cleanly in about 20 minutes. I have upgraded all of my systems ranging from the 450 MHz K6 to a 1.8 GHz P4M and only one took over a day and that one was done while I was on travel and couldn't really keep on top of the upgrade. I would STRONGLY urge that you do a portupgrade -aF to pre-fetch all source tarballs before you start. -- 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 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7 Dec 2004, at 18:04, Kevin Oberman wrote: It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). The vast number of interdependencies in Gnome do make upgrading a pain, but the 2.8 upgrade has a -restart option, so you don't have to start over. Okay, thats sounds like a vast improvement. However, what do you do if you don't have all of the gnome desktop installed - maybe just a few libraries to support some application under X. Will the script still work? Is portupgrade safe then? Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBtgkZLqgJ90OcaiARAqeRAJ4zIc/FbcdHmwliSPyljERMgh0oCwCgiPb0 Z1V4A2qtGWFTeNGgpmlBsco= =yqcU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not in this case. Check /usr/ports/UPDATING 20041107: : Do NOT use portupgrade(1) to update your GNOME 2.6 desktop to 2.8 Last time this happened, this is what caused my to deinstall gnome. THe upgrade script could take weeks to run on a reasonable spec machine because it insisted on rebuilding all sorts of stuff. You couldn't stop it, or it would start over. So install from packages instead of ports, if you don't like to compile things yourself. Taking weeks to run is an extreme exaggeration though, unless your reasonable spec machine is a 486. It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). That doesn't make a lot of sense - you have to compile the same amount of code whether it's in 5 packages or 20. Regardless, it's the decision the gnome project has made, and it's not up to the freebsd project to do it differently. Kris P.S. Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your emails may be easily read. pgpRc0GXEU5O1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Large port updates
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). * With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits; each has its faults. * With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta- ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9. * portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line. * If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME, not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you didn't like a movie you rented. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vectors.cx ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Large port updates
On Tuesday, 7. December 2004 23:32, Adam Weinberger wrote: On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity). * With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits; each has its faults. * With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta- ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9. * portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line. * If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME, not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you didn't like a movie you rented. Last but not least: ports/UPDATING is witness to the fact that a simple portupgrade -a won't always work for upgrading KDE either, in particular between feature releases (second number in version changes). And do expect hell to break loose when KDE 4 arrives... -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org pgpHD36tKc3lA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Large port updates
On Dec 7, 2004, at 12:38, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: you can use /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf to tell portupgrade which options to use when upgrading a certain port. I usually check the makefile of ports When using portupgrade(1), are Makefile.local files consulted? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
