Talk:Windows Update
(agreed) |
|||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 20:05, 7 March 2005
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)
