DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]
> <4303571D.9050306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43036a16$0$739$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200508171711.j7HHBPi1021543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <slrndg9akn.3077.kkenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: 1124382303 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 742 188.8.131.52
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3897
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:34:47 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>:Hiten Pandya wrote:
>>:> In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
>>:> want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most
>>:> people, including me would not really care about source packages; I for
>>:> one would not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, total waste of
>>:I totally agree with you.
>>:> Extremely important to get binary package management right, including
>>:> dependency handling, (automatic) updating.
>>:Yes. But how do you manage those softs, unfortunately extremely
>>:important, which cannot be delivered in binary form, like Java,
>>:and their dependencies?
>>:If it was not for these softs, and some other softs like Gnome, which
>>:are constantly broken for any reason, i have the impression (illusion?)
>>:that portupgrade -PP would do the job perfectly.
>> Illusion. Every time I have ever used portupgrade, the result has
>> been a completely broken system. Every time.
> You must be doing something "wrong" (i.e. not the supported way) in
> order for it to misbehave so badly. Portupgrade is just not that
> broken if you understand how to use it.
I agree and the /usr/ports/UPDATING will let us know if any update needs
to do something special if portupgrade will not work very well for like a
huge update of GNOME, Perl and etc for example.