ports manager vs. portupgrade

Andrew P. infofarmer at gmail.com
Sat Oct 29 04:16:07 PDT 2005


On 10/29/05, Gerard Seibert <gerard at seibercom.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2005 8:33:50 PM, "Elliot Finley" <efinleywork at efinley.com>
> Subject: ports manager vs. portupgrade
> Wrote these words of wisdom:
>
> > pros and cons anyone?
> >
> > I've always used portupgrade and it works pretty well, but I'm curious as to
> > how ports manager compares.
> >
> > Elliot
> >
> ***** REPLY SEPARATOR *****
> On 10/11/2005 5:29:42 PM, Gerard Replied:
>
> This is only my own opinion, but I find it does a better, more complete
> job, without the hassle of creating Indexes, etc. Portmanager does not
> use the indexes that portupgrade does, and therefore is not hampered by
> them if they become corrupt, etc.
>
> --
>
> A: Because it reverses the natural flow of a dialog.
> Q: Why is top posting undesirable when replying?
>
> TOPIC: Posting Etiquet
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

Portmanager is based on a very good idea, but it
still lacks many features of PU, and at times it is
a bit slower.

I'm sure, as it matures, it will become a very handy
tool, hopefully a lot faster.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list