Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:26:04 +0100
From:      Adam J Richardson <fatman.uk@gmail.com>
To:        Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: porteasy vs portupgrade
Message-ID:  <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us>
In-Reply-To: <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv>
References:  <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Miguel wrote:
> Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions 
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html
> 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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8144C.7010503>