portupgrade vs. portmanager

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Thursday 23 December 2004 11:16 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote:
> >>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup.
> >>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at
> >>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page
> >>=1 I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored
> >> out, telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped
> >> the non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD.
> >>
> >>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it
> >> looks like it would perform the same function as portupgrade.
> >>
> >>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition,
> >>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade?
> >
> > portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to
> > date, so the refuse file is a non issue with it.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager
> instead of portupgrade?
>
All of your ports will be built with the correct dependencies, they will
work better leaving you less to complain about in the mail lists and so 
you will become bored.  Because everything is working exactly as it 
should you may begin to think you are a Maytag repair man, nothing much 
to do, just always setting around waiting for something to break.....

-Mike