Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:34:29 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's the difference between portupgrade and portmaster ? Message-ID: <20100817163429.2f3936d3@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilWlt-ySQqMGfqhW0Hoq2AAgLFJy3kcF3FI6to6@mail.gmail.com> References: <28736514.post@talk.nabble.com> <AANLkTimcHZOLz7AvkVil29W4qbjb9oGTDAs3IE5ygQgm@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilWlt-ySQqMGfqhW0Hoq2AAgLFJy3kcF3FI6to6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 09:46:50 +0200 David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/6/1 Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>: > The differences are that portupgrade use a database, it's written in > ruby while portmaster is only one shell script. That's why I really > prefere portmaster that also have zsh completion and is faster. Am I the only one to regard portmaster's lack of a failsafe install as a significant problem? All three tools will make a back-up of an installed package before deinstalling it and installing the new version. If this fails Portupgrade and portmanager will immediately restore the backup usually with no more disruption that a normal upgrade. Portmaster leaves you to restore the backup manually which is a minor hassle if you notice it immediately, a problem if you find out the hard way, and a potential nightmare if you miss it altogether.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100817163429.2f3936d3>