On 03 June 2012 AM 9:15:14 Chris Rees wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2012 5:26 AM, "Erich" <erichfreebsdlist@ovit...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On 02 June 2012 PM 2:56:01 Chris Nehren wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 14:11:06 -0400 , Paul Mather wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure what the solution is for the end user. I know I get
> > > > somewhat leery of updating my ports if I see a large number of changes
> > > > coming via portsnap (like the 4000+ that accompanied the recent libpng
> > > > upgrade) and there is nothing new in UPDATING (which, happily wasn't
> > > > the case with the libpng upgrade). Usually, I wait a while for the
> > > > dust to clear and an UPDATING entry potentially to appear.
> > >
> > > If you're concerned about things breaking, don't follow the bleeding
> > > edge. This seems to be common sense.
> > is there a second version of the ports tree available?
> > What is the response of the list if you want to install a new package
> with you old ports tree?
> The response is "Don't ask for support if you do that", I'm afraid.
> No major OS I can think of allows you to mix and match like that (though I
> could be wrong).
it is new to me that Microsoft asks for a Windows update when a new Office version appears at the scene.
Microsoft also does not ask to update all other applications before the latest Office can be installed.