On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 05:40:23PM +0100, RW wrote: > On Monday 07 August 2006 16:12, cpghost wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:03:00PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > > A key design feature of portmanager is that everything is built with > > > up-to-date dependencies, having this kind of feature would, in general, > > > defeat that. > > > > Why would that? The port trees themselves are synchronized; just the > > set of installed ports ain't. The packages generated on the different > > machines are absolutely identical AFAICS; including their dependencies. > > There's no point in recompiling them separately if the result is the > > same on all machines. That's why I'd like to reuse the newly created > > packages. > > But it would be very complicated for portmanager to determine whether a > package file meets it's exacting standards for "up-to-date", especially since > most people that would want to use such a feature, would want to get 6-stable > packages. > > The developer always said that he wanted it to be a simple way of keeping a > system up-to-date from source, and not general purpose ports/package tool. > And AFAIK he's lost interest in it.
That's sad. It was such a nice tool. > What you might do is compile your collection of packages, install them with > portupgrade and optionally run portmanager after to clean up any problems. Yup, that's the trick! Thanks again for the hints! :) Regards, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"