Re: ream [odd Subject note added, should have still said: Upgrading base alone (was: pkgbase(8))]
Mark Millard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2/22/26 19:40, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2/22/26 18:35, Graham Perrin wrote: >> On 23/02/2026 01:22, Theron wrote: >>> … Performing base system upgrade without caring what has happened or >>> will happen to ports packages is the feature that should be preserved. … >> >> >> pkg upgrade --repository FreeBSD-base >> >> >> Issue 2414 is probably fixed, I have not seen symptoms in recent months. >> >> >> > > > Have you deliberately had installed port-packages that depend on files > being replaced or removed for FreeBSD-base ? > > This kind of port-package removal activity is more likely for things > like a 15.0-RELEASE* to 15.1-RELEASE (releng/15.0/ tracking) type of > FreeBSD-base upgrade than for to a 15.0-RELEASE-p* upgrade, for example. > Of course, a 15.0-RELEASE* to a 16.0-RELEASE* upgrade will likely > involve far more potential for far more examples. > > As far as frequency goes, stable/15/ tracking updates would likely have > more frequent examples than releng/15.0/ would. > > In summary: Which type of evidence is your judgment based on? (I've not > been doing anything that gives me any notable evidence of the status.) > > > There is also the issue of "pkg upgrade --repository FreeBSD-base" not > doing an implicit pkg update from the upstream status information for > FreeBSD-base unless FreeBSD-base is already enabled at the time > --despite how such was documented. > > This is the 2nd time that I've noticed one of my replies ends up with an odd Subject line --when I'd done no deliberate editing of the Subject line text. Sorry for the oddity. -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com