Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:33:53 +0200
From:      Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
To:        Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   portupgrade vs. portmaster (was: Re: Port directory not found:)
Message-ID:  <eb6b5782-83e0-0070-92bf-ff163de8ea3c@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1t50FOZBSySA9W6c2Tf0aNzj2fB_K6fUKZM_s8bB%2BHMsg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <alpine.BSF.2.21.1804291704260.12803@mail.neu.net> <20180429214807.GA85409@elch.exwg.net> <CAN6yY1t50FOZBSySA9W6c2Tf0aNzj2fB_K6fUKZM_s8bB%2BHMsg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 30.04.18 um 05:45 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> portmaster(8) operates very similarly to portupgrade(8). There are some
> differences that can bite you, though, so read the man page first.

I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction
of the new package tools), but then mobed over to using portmaster.

When the package system (PKG-NG) war completely reworked, I heard that
portupgrade was better adapted to the new tools, but did not verify that
claim (and instead submitted a few fixes for portmaster).

I'm working on a complete rewrite on portmaster, since the original author
has left the FreeBSD project, years ago, and I found it very hard to wrap
my mind around his design when I implemented FLAVOR support in portmaster.

My time is now spent on completing that new portmaster version, but I still
fix problems reported in the current portmaster port (but will not implement
any changes that are not bug-related, to be able to concentrate on the new
version).

> For updating a single port: portmaster PORTNAME (e.g. portmaster
> chromium-65.0.3325.181_1)
> Note that portmaster(8) treats when you type like there is an '*' at the
> end, so, e.g. "portmaster virtualbox-ose" will result in both
> virtualbox-ose and virtualbox-ose-kmod being updated. Very useful for
> updating multiple related ports such as "portmaster p5-" to update all p5
> ports.

I know that portmaster and portupgrade offer differing features and options,
but do not have time to identify features missing in portmaster to make it
a fully functional replacement of portmaster.

I'd appreciate, if portupgrade users could let me know, what features or
behaviour they miss in portmaster.

The globbing performed by portmaster (as explained by Kevin) is one of
the portmaster features that I find surprising at times, and I think
I'll require "virtualbox-ose*" for the current behaviour - but I'll let
the portmaster users decide, whether this is a useful change.

> If you are installing, you must include both the ports
> subdirectory/portdirectory. E.g. graphics/ImageMagick

Does portupgrade locate the correct category for you, if you just specify
the sub-directory within some category?

That is something that I could add to portmaster, but currently the slash
in a parameter signals, that a port directory is meant instead of a
package name ...

> Options are similar, but not identical nd there are a lot of added ones. I
> find "-y --clean-dirtfiles" very handy.

Those dirtfiles are distfiles, I assume ;-)

That is one of the many features already re-implemented in my new version.

Missing are special features like the temporary installation of pure build
dependencies (say bison or some cross-gcc version) from packages (if those
are available at the expected version level) and de-installation of those
dependencies after a successful creation of packages that needed to be
upgraded (e.g. for use by the nanobsd release builder).


So, if you miss a portupgrade feature in portmaster, let me know or create
a feature request on bugzilla. I'll consider those for the new version,
that I hope to be able to release in a few weeks.

Best regards, STefan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eb6b5782-83e0-0070-92bf-ff163de8ea3c>