Talk:Windows Update - Revision history

209.161.227.206 at 03:11, 24 January 2006

2006-01-24T03:11:44Z

192.94.73.3 at 09:54, 9 March 2005

2005-03-09T09:54:24Z

65.9.153.202: agreed

2005-03-08T01:05:14Z

agreed

Jimbo at 15:03, 7 March 2005

2005-03-07T15:03:36Z

New page

'''portupgrade -a''' is bad because you're damn near guaranteed to wind up with conflicts and a screaming mess if you have 10 or 15 different ports needing updates, and the process WILL bomb out on you, leaving things in an unpredictable condition. So f'r'instance you would NOT want to set up a periodic script to just run '''portupgrade -a''' and assume your system is always up to date; not only is it not going to be up to date, but it is very likely to be *broken* before long. In my experience running portupgrade -a has been so unreliable that I don't even do that on monitored updates; I just portupgrade the ports one at a time until they're done. --[[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]] 10:03, 7 Mar 2005 (EST)

----

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:11, 24 January 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Thanks for the info.. guess there's no equivalent of '''emerge -u world''' here :). This would probably be useful on the [[portupgrade]] page. --[[User:192.94.73.3\|192.94.73.3]] 04:54, 9 Mar 2005 (EST)		Thanks for the info.. guess there's no equivalent of '''emerge -u world''' here :). This would probably be useful on the [[portupgrade]] page. --[[User:192.94.73.3\|192.94.73.3]] 04:54, 9 Mar 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	I have been using portupgrade -arR for a few years now, and the only problems I ever had were running that before reading the UPDATING file and discovering that gnome updating wasn't possible with portupgrade. Sometimes it takes two or three passes with portupgrade but it has never left my system in a mess yet (and I do tend to install and uninstall a LOT of ports to try them out).

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:54, 9 March 2005
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I personally have hosed at least three installs of 5.1 and two of 5.2.1 by using portupgrade -a -- invariably leads to a corrupt pkgdb, which you then have to rebuild and force and unregister and re-register a bunch of stuff. Much better to portupgrade each port by itself.--[[User:65.9.153.202\|65.9.153.202]] 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (EST)		I personally have hosed at least three installs of 5.1 and two of 5.2.1 by using portupgrade -a -- invariably leads to a corrupt pkgdb, which you then have to rebuild and force and unregister and re-register a bunch of stuff. Much better to portupgrade each port by itself.--[[User:65.9.153.202\|65.9.153.202]] 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	Thanks for the info.. guess there's no equivalent of '''emerge -u world''' here :). This would probably be useful on the [[portupgrade]] page. --[[User:192.94.73.3\|192.94.73.3]] 04:54, 9 Mar 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 8 March 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	----		----
		+
		+	== agreed ==
		+
		+	I personally have hosed at least three installs of 5.1 and two of 5.2.1 by using portupgrade -a -- invariably leads to a corrupt pkgdb, which you then have to rebuild and force and unregister and re-register a bunch of stuff. Much better to portupgrade each port by itself.--[[User:65.9.153.202\|65.9.153.202]] 20:05, 7 Mar 2005 (EST)