Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:21:56 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: Chris <racerx@makeworld.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I like Ubuntu Message-ID: <20070414202156.GB954@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <46212CC5.9050408@makeworld.com> References: <2a4057fc0704131021t60249c62k4107ee6cf9f1fb8f@mail.gmail.com> <86mz1ckqlc.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20070413183656.E73976@fledge.watson.org> <86tzvjz2dr.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20070414125712.L73976@fledge.watson.org> <46212CC5.9050408@makeworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:34:29PM -0500, Chris wrote: > > To me, apt-get is certainly cleaner and superior to > portupgrade/portmanager. Perhaps someday either or will be as reliable > as apt-get. > > Just my opinions of course. In my experience, portupgrade is more reliable than apt-get. I have seen a number of packages fail to upgrade cleanly in Debian over the last year -- more often than with portupgrade -- and when there's a failure of the APT system it can be much more difficult to fix the problem than it is with the ports tree. Could you provide some specific details about your experiences with APT and the ports tree that provide a clearer picture of why you have arrived at these conclusions? I'm curious, and would like to know if there are problems ahead of which I should be aware. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070414202156.GB954>