From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 06:43:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B23D16A4CE for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:43:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out011.verizon.net (out011pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CDC43D31 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:43:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from reso3w83@verizon.net) Received: from ringworm.mechee.com ([4.26.84.7]) by out011.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041224064357.YQOA4717.out011.verizon.net@ringworm.mechee.com> for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:43:57 -0600 Received: by ringworm.mechee.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F2E6A2CE740; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:41:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:41:11 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> In-Reply-To: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [4.26.84.7] at Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:43:57 -0600 Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:43:58 -0000 On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup. > Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=1 > I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out, > telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the > non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD. > > In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks > like it would perform the same function as portupgrade. > > My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition, > perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade? portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it. -Mike