Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:26:49 +0200, Coert wrote:
I checked the man page, and the -PP option is indeed what I am looking for.
The -PP option forces packages. Keep in mind that it *may* happen
that there isn't a package for a specific port, or a package uses
the default option
On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:26:49 +0200, Coert wrote:
> I checked the man page, and the -PP option is indeed what I am looking for.
The -PP option forces packages. Keep in mind that it *may* happen
that there isn't a package for a specific port, or a package uses
the default options of a port (see "ma
Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:23:58 +0200, Coert wrote:
First I completed the freebsd-update
Then I ran portupgrade -av
Then I ran portsnap.
It's a bit confusing to me. Why do you first update your installed
ports, then the ports database? I would thing it would make more
sense in
On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:23:58 +0200, Coert wrote:
> First I completed the freebsd-update
> Then I ran portupgrade -av
> Then I ran portsnap.
It's a bit confusing to me. Why do you first update your installed
ports, then the ports database? I would thing it would make more
sense in reverse order, i
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 12/18/08 12:12 PM, "Daniel Bye" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Pieter Donche wrote:
> >>
> >> So since it's faster and doesn't delete user generated files,
> >> upgrade is always to be preferred over extract, right?
On 12/18/08 12:12 PM, "Daniel Bye" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Pieter Donche wrote:
>>
>> So since it's faster and doesn't delete user generated files,
>> upgrade is always to be preferred over extract, right?
>
> Yes. As RW has already noted, extract will replace the ent
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Pieter Donche wrote:
> >Portsnap doesn't know about anything in the ports tree that it didn't
> >put there itself. For that reason it needs to bring the tree to an
> >initial known-state by replacing all port directories and other
> >files. For the same rea
README.html).
So since it's faster and doesn't delete user generated files, upgrade is
always to be preferred over extract, right?
unless you made BIG mess in /usr/ports - yes
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, RW wrote:
[ Since this is on-topic, I'm taking it back on-list. ]
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:11:26 +0100 (CET)
Pieter Donche wrote:
'Installing the tree from disk' do you mean with that: the install
during sysinstall of /usr/ports from what is on the
FREEBDSD-7.0-RELEASE
[ Since this is on-topic, I'm taking it back on-list. ]
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:11:26 +0100 (CET)
Pieter Donche wrote:
>
> 'Installing the tree from disk' do you mean with that: the install
> during sysinstall of /usr/ports from what is on the
> FREEBDSD-7.0-RELEASE CD's ?
Yes
> If so, if you
RW wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:08:44 +0100 (CET)
Pieter Donche wrote:
( decompress to /usr/ports )
# portsnap extract
( it is not clear to me if this is correct if one already has
a /usr/ports created during sysinstall .. )
You need the extract so that the tree is exactly matched to the
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:08:44 +0100 (CET)
Pieter Donche wrote:
> ( decompress to /usr/ports )
> # portsnap extract
>
> ( it is not clear to me if this is correct if one already has
> a /usr/ports created during sysinstall .. )
You need the extract so that the tree is exactly matched to the
snap
12 matches
Mail list logo
