> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chris H wrote: >> Greetings, and thank you for your reply. >> >> I understand that portupgrade _will_ pull in other dependencies _as >> needed_ -- I _do_ read the man(1) pages. :) >> >> But it installed (pulled in) far more than those dependencies >> actually required. I believe, due to the fact that it doesn't >> appear to honor the original build options recorded in >> /var/db/ports/<portname>/options. Nor, do I recall that it honored >> /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed? > > You may have asked portupgrade to use packages first and fall back > to building from source. That would install the packages which were > built with the default options on the package building cluster. It > saves time; but I don't like mixing packages with build from source, > especially when I want custom options on anything. > > -- > Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin > lamb...@lambertfam.org Greetings Scott, and thank you for the reply.
You may be right. Like I said, it's been awhile. I don't like mixing things either. I have more than enough to think about, as it is. Why try adding any additional unnecessary elements to reconcile. I'm gonna give portmaster a try, I think. Seems to have more positive comments. But, in all fairness to portupgrade; it may have been a misunderstanding on my part. Thanks again, for taking the time to respond. --Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
