Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:31 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Jos Chrispijn <ports@webrz.net> Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Portmanager vs portupgrade Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1401230833410.76961@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <52E0FE75.9010504@webrz.net> References: <52E0FE75.9010504@webrz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Jos Chrispijn wrote: > I lately read more often that Portmaster is preferred about portupdate. > Can you tell me why this is? I know that portupdate is Ruby driven, but > furthermore I cannot detect the real advantages one above the other? Your subject line mentions portmanager, which is an old system that has apparently been removed from ports. I used portupgrade for something like a decade. It works, but now I have switched to portmaster. It also works, but is just a shell script and can be run without Ruby and bdb, which in turn depend on other things. Portupgrade is more mature and has a few features that come in handy at rare times, like being able to upgrade a given port and everything it depends on. Portmaster is simpler, has less overhead, and has default behavior that learned from some of portupgrade's mistakes, like fetching distfiles and showing config screens all at the start of the process instead of mixed in with the build. It also parallelizes some things rather than doing them serially, like checking for distfiles, and can be faster because of that. There is no problem switching between them, the ports that are installed are the same. I would suggest using portmaster, and installing and using portupgrade only if you need one of the features it provides that portmaster lacks.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1401230833410.76961>