Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:26:04 +0100
From:      Adam J Richardson <>
To:        Miguel <>
Subject:   Re: porteasy vs portupgrade
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Miguel wrote:
> Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions 
> for doing all the port managing, what about porteasy, it is as  good as 
> portupgrade?
> i think porteasy is not as popular as portupgrade.
> thanks

Hi Miguel,

I use portupgrade and portsnap, a combination which seems to work fine. 
The only thing that annoys me about portupgrade is that it's written in 
Ruby, and when it's time for an upgrade I always have to upgrade the 
Ruby compiler as well. Upgrading Ruby just takes forever on these old 
battered beige boxes.

I have similar issues with Darcs and the Glasgow Haskell Compiler. Wish 
they could be ported to C++ or something. Oh well.

One bit of advice I would do well to remember is: the first thing to do 
after /installing/ the ports tree is to /update/ the ports tree. I 
forgot one time and had to upgrade all my apps when I'd installed them. :/

Adam J Richardson

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>