Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:26:04 +0100 From: Adam J Richardson <fatman.uk@gmail.com> To: Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: porteasy vs portupgrade Message-ID: <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us> In-Reply-To: <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv> References: <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Miguel wrote: > Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html > for doing all the port managing, what about porteasy, it is as good as > portupgrade? > i think porteasy is not as popular as portupgrade. > thanks Hi Miguel, I use portupgrade and portsnap, a combination which seems to work fine. The only thing that annoys me about portupgrade is that it's written in Ruby, and when it's time for an upgrade I always have to upgrade the Ruby compiler as well. Upgrading Ruby just takes forever on these old battered beige boxes. I have similar issues with Darcs and the Glasgow Haskell Compiler. Wish they could be ported to C++ or something. Oh well. One bit of advice I would do well to remember is: the first thing to do after /installing/ the ports tree is to /update/ the ports tree. I forgot one time and had to upgrade all my apps when I'd installed them. :/ Adam J Richardson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8144C.7010503>