Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:43:13 -0500
From:      Eric <heli@mikestammer.com>
To:        Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: porteasy vs portupgrade
Message-ID:  <46A8B301.7080903@mikestammer.com>
In-Reply-To: <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv>
References:  <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv> <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us> <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Miguel wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

try portmaster as a replacement to portupgrade. No dependencies and it 
works great.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8B301.7080903>