On 10/30/26 22:38, void wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 03:52:51PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > >> What would be the best/correct way to update such a port and not risking >> that poudriere re-builds a big amount of the 2300 ports? > > I'd just run a build (after updating the ports tree) with > > 'poudriere bulk -j buildername -J-numberofcores www/chromium' > that way chromium plus any updated dependencies it needs gets > rebuilt. I'd expect a number of ports to get rebuilt but > would be surprised if it's even a quarter of your total number. > > note: ports-mgmt/poudriere-dsh2dsh is better at skipping needless > rebuilds than standard poudriere the last time I looked. This is what > I use.
For poudriere-devel there is also PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS=yes for use in poudriere.conf types of files. With that, poudriere only rebuilds what pkg would upgrade. Historically poudriere-devel also did various rebuilds that pkg would not later upgrade to, such as: if the major version for a .so dependency had not actually changed. In essence, various builds actually end up being a quick inspection activity instead that leads to avoiding the actual build. So the actual build count ends up being smaller (when not counting the inspections). If the inspection finds a .so major version change is involved in the dependencies, that was not otherwise noticed, it leads to the build being done as pkg would do the upgrade. This does mean that bulk -n results do not report the improvement, as later inspections are dependent on prior rebuilds that do happen to occur in the bulk build so the actual build count is not known up front. PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS is not listed in poudriere.conf.sample yet and "man -K PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS" output is empty still. -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
