Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

Jeremy Messenger mezz7 at
Thu Aug 18 09:25:46 PDT 2005

> <4303571D.9050306 at xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43036a16$0$739$415eb37d at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200508171711.j7HHBPi1021543 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <slrndg9akn.3077.kkenn at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 45
X-Trace: 1124382303 742
Xref: dragonfly.users:3897

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:34:47 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On 2005-08-17, Matthew Dillon <dillon at 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 
>>:> time.
>>: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.


> Kris

More information about the Users mailing list