On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 09:39:59AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 05:09:58AM +0500, Артур Истомин wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:17:29PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2016/12/21 10:26, Артур Истомин wrote: > > > > I'm trying update some ports, but when I invoke "make update" nothing > > > > happens. > > > > > > > > Collecting installed packages: ok > > > > Collecting port versions: ok > > > > Collecting port signatures|******************Collecting port > > > > signatures: ok > > > > Outdated ports: > > > > > > > > devel/quirks # always-update -> quirks-2.241 > > > > net/glib2-networking # @gnutls-3.4.14 -> @gnutls-3.4.15 > > > > x11/gtk+2,-main # @gdk-pixbuf-2.34.0 -> > > > > @gdk-pixbuf-2.34.0p0 > > > > x11/gtk+3,-guic # @gdk-pixbuf-2.34.0 -> > > > > @gdk-pixbuf-2.34.0p0 > > > > > > > > cd x11/gtk+2 > > > > make update > > > > > > > > ...and nothing happens > > > > > > > > I'm doing something wrong? > > > > My system is OpenBSD 6.0 > > > > > > > > > > "make update" is not useful in this case. > > > > Is it because it dynamicly linked? Can I not worry about this port? > > > > > In general, "make update" is only really useful for people who are > > > working on ports development, not for normal users. > > > > > > I'd _strongly_ recommend you just use binary packages. > > > > I'm doing exactly that. But there are ports/packages that not updated > > anymore. > > And they are crucial from security point of view. Example is Firefox. Latest > > version in ports is 47.0.1. It has many critical vulns. So, I'm now in > > position > > trying to downgrade it to 45.6.0, to upgrade it to 50.1.0 or doing nothing. > > You're doing it wrong ? In that case, use www/firefox-esr port instead of > butchering www/mozilla-firefox. And if you're using -release/stable, you > can easily backport -current commits there.. which might not be the case > for mainline firefox.
Ah, thank you very much for tip! I overlooked somehow this port =(
