Talk:Windows Update
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. --Jimbo 10:03, 7 Mar 2005 (EST)
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.--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. --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).
