> > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:24:26 +0100
> >
> > David Southwell wrote:
> > > Tried that but no good - it still seems to goof up. I recall it used
> > >
> > > to work many versions ago but it may not have been picked up on a
> > > regression test.
> >
> > It works for me. Which port is it failin
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:24:26 +0100
>
> David Southwell wrote:
> > Tried that but no good - it still seems to goof up. I recall it used
> >
> > to work many versions ago but it may not have been picked up on a
> > regression test.
>
> It works for me. Which port is it failing on
portupgrade -
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:24:26 +0100
David Southwell wrote:
> Tried that but no good - it still seems to goof up. I recall it used
> to work many versions ago but it may not have been picked up on a
> regression test.
>
It works for me. Which port is it failing on?
__
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:14:30 +0100
>
> David Southwell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > man portupgrade advises:
> > -f
> >
> > --forceForce the upgrade of a package even if it
> >
> > is to be a downgrade or just a reinstall of the same ver-
> >
> >
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:14:30 +0100
David Southwell wrote:
> Hi
>
> man portupgrade advises:
>
> -f
> --forceForce the upgrade of a package even if it
> is to be a downgrade or just a reinstall of the same ver-
> sion, or the port is held by
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:14:30 +0100
David Southwell articulated:
> man portupgrade advises:
>
> -f
> --forceForce the upgrade of a package even if it
> is to be a downgrade or just a reinstall of the same ver-
> sion, or the port is held by u
Hi
man portupgrade advises:
-f
--forceForce the upgrade of a package even if it is to be
a downgrade or just a reinstall of the same ver-
sion, or the port is held by user using the
HO
