From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 07:40:56 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 82EAE16A4CE for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:40:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out014.verizon.net (out014pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB8143D41 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:40:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from reso3w83@verizon.net) Received: from ringworm.mechee.com ([4.26.84.7]) by out014.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20041224074055.CGXE28388.out014.verizon.net@ringworm.mechee.com> for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:40:55 -0600 Received: by ringworm.mechee.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 141AF2CE740; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:38:10 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:38:09 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net> <41CBC255.2070309@att.net> In-Reply-To: <41CBC255.2070309@att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412232338.09555.reso3w83@verizon.net> X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net from [4.26.84.7] at Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:40:55 -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 07:40:56 -0000 On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > 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? > All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so you will become bored. Because everything is working exactly as it should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break..... -Mike