Mathieu Arnold wrote on 2018/04/03 17:34:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:07:22AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:14:06PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:34:25 +0200
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:07:22AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
>> How would someone performing only binary package updates know to
>> look at ports/UPDATING, and how would that be done? Such an
>> installation may well
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:07:22AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:14:06PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> > > UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically but it was not.
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:50PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:14:06PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> > UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically but it was not.
> >
> > "People using Poudriere 3.2+ and binary packages do not have to do
> > anything."
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:14:06PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically but it was not.
>
> "People using Poudriere 3.2+ and binary packages do not have to do
> anything."
M, well, this sentence is partly right, and partly wrong.
If you
UPDATING entry says it should be upgraded automatically but it was not.
"People using Poudriere 3.2+ and binary packages do not have to do
anything."
Our packages was built in Poudriere 3.2.4. pkg upgrade on target
machines did upgrade of Apache, PHP, extensions etc. but PECL a PEAR