On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
Hi!
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
Now that such a tool (yours?) is in /etc/periodic/weekly, how
On 28 Jun, Leif Neland wrote:
The steps needed for upgrading a package (from ports) would be:
make install
append foo-1.1/+REQUIRED_BY to foo-1.2/+REQUIRED_BY
traverse /var/db/pkg/* and remove foo-1.1/replace with foo-1.2
"subtract" foo-1.2/+CONTENT from foo-1.1/+CONTENT, only
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On 28 Jun, Leif Neland wrote:
The steps needed for upgrading a package (from ports) would be:
make install
append foo-1.1/+REQUIRED_BY to foo-1.2/+REQUIRED_BY
On Wed 2000-06-28 (15:13), Leif Neland wrote:
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
It will break the system at least 20% of the time. Change 20% to 100%
for gnome, kde, xpm, png, tiff, jpeg, and so forth.
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
[EMAIL
On 28 Jun, Leif Neland wrote:
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
- it removes your config files in most cases.
- it may break binaries which depend upon a specific library.
- ...
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Secret hacker rule #11: hackers read manuals.
On 28 Jun, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
It will break the system at least 20% of the time. Change 20% to 100%
for gnome, kde, xpm, png, tiff, jpeg, and so forth.
I've successfully updated png/tiff/jpeg and some gnome packages
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On 28 Jun, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
It will break the system at least 20% of the time. Change 20% to 100%
for gnome, kde, xpm, png, tiff, jpeg, and so forth.
I've
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On 28 Jun, Leif Neland wrote:
Any reason not to put this into bsd.port.mk?
make update
- it removes your config files in most cases.
Most sane install's either just installs foo.conf.sample, or won't
overwrite existing config-files.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:25:02PM +0200, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
pkg_version(1)
Ah, haven't seen
Hi!
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
Ciao,
Thomas Schürger. http://www.menden.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:27:16PM +0200, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
pkg_version(1)
--
Will Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
pkg_version(1)
Ah, haven't seen that before. The output of pkg_version is very
canonical, but not very
If memory serves me right, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
updates in /usr/ports?
I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
interested?
pkg_version(1)
Ah, haven't seen that before. The
13 matches
Mail list logo
