Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:50:04 -0600
From:      Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: porteasy vs portupgrade
Message-ID:  <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv>
In-Reply-To: <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us>
References:  <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv> <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Adam J Richardson escribió:
> 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.
>

you are absolutly right, portsnap + portupgrade,
thakns



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8B49C.6070903>