Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:02:30 -0800 From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net> To: FreeBSD - questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager Message-ID: <41CC4BA6.3060806@att.net> In-Reply-To: <200412241554.03932.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> <41CBC255.2070309@att.net> <200412232338.09555.reso3w83@verizon.net> <200412241554.03932.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Friday 24 December 2004 07:38, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > >>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..... > > > I don't use portmanager myself, but isn't it the case that portmanager > rebuilds not just ports that have newer versions in the ports tree, but also > all ports that recursively depend on those ports. > > I just updated kdehier with portupgrade in about a minute. The whole of KDE > depends on kdehier, so presumably portmanager would have taken several days, > and kdehier isn't particularly unusual. I would see that as a major downside. > > When it's necessary UPDATING will suggest running portupgrade -rf to force > rebuilding. That kind of UPDATING entry is in a small minority, which > suggests to me that most of the problems with ports don't stem from the > sequence of their updating, so I can't see how portmanager is any kind of > magic-bullet. > > So portmanager rebuilds whether it needs it or not, and portupgrade only rebuilds when there is a later distribution of the software? The distinction between the two is not clear to me. This is my first try to update ports, and I want to set up a procedure for updating that I can follow in the future. Jay
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41CC4BA6.3060806>