On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:08:42 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > My experience is exactly the opposite. The biggest problem I've > had with ports came from trying to follow the recommended approach > of updating the tree after installing, before trying to build > anything.
This is a _conditional_ suggestion. For those who follow a -STABLE branch, using a continuously updated ports tree, in combination with updating the OS and the installed applications, might sound more interesting than the opposite approach: Installing and _using_ a -RELEASE (and often only adding the security updates) and working with the "frozen" ports tree of that particular release. Note the difference of -RELEASE and -STABLE - you'll find similarities in handling the ports tree. There is no clear definition of "use _this_ on a server, use _that_ on a desktop"; individual updating and using habits are important here. > In retrospect, I'm not at all sure why anyone would be surprised > at this finding -- or why "update it first" would be recommended. > The ports tree is known to be buildable and self-consistent when > packages are built for a release, and that version of the tree > is distributed with the release. Correct. Especially for offline operations, this is an approach often recommended. > If something won't build on a > freshly-installed -RELEASE, but the build cluster _was_ able to > build the package, there pretty much has to be something wrong with > the local installation. And in that case, exchanging a non-compiling port (for whatever reason) with a binary package from the RELEASE set of archives is a possible way to solve the problem. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"