Time to mark portupgrade deprecated?

[Michal Varga]

On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:33 +0200, Tilman Keskinöz wrote:

> I am ok with switching the documentation to portmaster, but i am against
> marking it DEPRECATED. I have been using portupdate for 10 years and it
> works for all my usecases.
> 
> Switching to portmaster means i have to learn new -options and new error
> messages. Unless there is a killer feature in portmaster i don't see a
> reason to switch.


Basically, this.

I'm on the very same boat, so to reiterate it again, from my point of
view:


1. Portupgrade may have bugs, sure, but none of them are critical and
every one I know about can be easily worked around whenever situation
arises. Some of them are so old now that most regular users probably
count them as features.


2. I too have been using portupdate for 10 years (hello!) and it works
for all my usecases.


3. Switching to portmaster means retraining for a different *mission
critical* software, that behaves differently, and that I currently have
no need for, because the former one works fine. To point out a specific
examply that I see frequently in UPDATING:

  If you use portmaster:
  # portmaster -r icu

  If you use portupgrade:
  # portupgrade -fr devel/icu

Ok, sure, easy task.. Hey..what? In portupgrade, -r builds all my ports
recursively and updates those which are out of date, where -f forces it
to rebuild every single one along the path. Clear, right? So why is this
different for portmaster? Where is my -f[orce] option? Will -r always
rebuild everything? Or will it never, as it is with portupgrade without
-f used? IF that's the case, how can my scripts recursively rebuild only
needed stuff and...damn.

Sure, by that time I spent on writing this email, I might have been
halfway through portmaster documentation and have my questions answered,
but that's obviously not the point - I just don't need, and don't want
to.

While portupgrade works (and it works), I don't want spending my time on
cross-checking every single usecase between portmaster and portupgrade
so that my upgrade scripts can safely play with the new popular kid on
the block.

Unless there is something fundamentally broken with portupgrade (other
than a few open PRs) that prevents it from working on a modern FreeBSD
system, I don't see a point in deprecation. Especially when portmaster
is *NOT* a drop-in replacement.

Again, from recent UPDATING:

  portmaster cannot process the upgrade of www/p5-libwww from version
  5 to version 6. To upgrade p5-libwww, use portupgrade instead, or
  deinstall p5-libwww before reinstalling:

  If you use portmaster:
  # pkg_delete -f 'p5-libwww-5*' ; portmaster www/p5-libwww

  If you use portupgrade, no special treatment is necessary.


m.

-- 
Michal Varga,
Stonehenge (Gmail account)