On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 08:08:07PM +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
> NO_UPDATE="major jump in version - keep old version too"
> Or
> UPDATE_OK="1.0.3"
> meaning it's ok to upgrade if the previous version is 1.0.3 or higher.
You are now *way* into Ports issues. Please move this discussion to
[EMAIL PR
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
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 for
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 package
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.
http:
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 PROT
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 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, on
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
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)
>
>
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 see
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Schuerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Will Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Check for ports updates
> > > Is there already a too
> > 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 v
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 PROTECT
14 matches
Mail list logo
