Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:16:37 -0800 From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net> To: "Michael C. Shultz" <reso3w83@verizon.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager Message-ID: <41CBC255.2070309@att.net> In-Reply-To: <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net> References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael C. Shultz wrote: > 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 > Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager instead of portupgrade? Jay
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41CBC255.2070309>