"Doing the deed" on portupgrade

[Frank Leonhardt]

On 12/04/2012 10:03, Joel Dahl wrote:
> On 12-04-2012  8:26, Chris Rees wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Even since its deprecation, portupgrade has proven to be very popular
>> with newcomers, which I might be inclined to blame on the fact that
>> the Handbook lists it first.
>>
>> Two patches:

>> <snip>
>>
>> Rendered at http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/rendered/portupgrade.html
>>
>> Thoughts?  Anyone want to risk approving it?
> Good idea. I'd like to see Portmaster first in the list though, and not
> Portmanager.
>

The text on the rendered version opens with "Portmanager is *another* 
utility for easy upgrading when it's now the first to be mentioned.

Not knowing very much about this system, I've always been a little 
confused by the multifarious options in the documentation like this. 
Listing them in order of preference would help but it'd be nice to start 
a section like this with the pros and cons of the various strategies 
about to be outlined . The reason for not using portupgrade is clear; 
Portmaster looks a good option because it implies it won't drag in every 
scripting language and module under the sun when you build it (according 
to the documentation posted). So why would anyone use Portmanager? 
(Incidentally, I have always used portupgrade, simply because it's first 
on the list).

Regards, Frank.