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
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
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.
## 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
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
[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
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
-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
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
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
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
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?
12 matches
Mail list logo
