Quoth Mike Clarke on Monday, 27 September 2010: > On Monday 27 September 2010, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > I've recently started on a new system, and am planning to install > > 8.1-RELEASE, including the corresponding ports tree; then install > > what ports I can from packages and also fetch the corresponding > > distfiles; and finally build -- from release-corresponding ports -- > > any that aren't available as packages or where I want non-default > > OPTION settings. That approach should avoid most nasty surprises > > while getting things set up and working. _After_ everything is > > installed and configured properly will be plenty soon enough to > > consider whether any ports need to be updated -- and the already- > > installed-and-working package collection will provide a fallback > > in case of trouble trying to build any updated versions. > > The problem is if/when you need to update a port as a result of a > security advisory. If your ports tree is very much out of date then > it's likely that updating that one port will require a number of > dependencies to be updated as well, sometimes all the ports depending > on one or more of the updated dependencies need to be updated as well > and the resultant bag of worms can take quite a lot of sorting out. > The "little and often" approach of keeping the ports tree up to date > could be less traumatic. > > -- > Mike Clarke
That's the maxim under which I operate. Furthermore, if something does break, it's a lot easier to narrow down what broke it if you updated one or two ports instead of twenty or thirty. I use the same principle in following STABLE -- frequently update/build so if anything goes wrong, the number of culpable commits is small. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com | http://chipsquips.com
pgpYFGtRRPCCb.pgp
Description: PGP signature