Portmanager vs portupgrade

Erich Dollansky erichsfreebsdlist at alogt.com
Thu Jan 23 14:07:48 UTC 2014


On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:55:20 -0500
Ajtim <lumiwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 23 January 2014 13:08:17 RW wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:39:59 +0000
> > Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > maintained by the same people (bdrewery mostly).  portupgrade
> > > requires you to install ruby as well: that's probably the biggest
> > > deciding factor still extant. 
> > 
> > For me the biggest factor is that portupgrade doesn't stop on the
> > first error, it carries on building ports that don't depend on
> > failed ports and then presents a summary of the problems at the
> > end. 
> > 
> > This is a big advantage on desktop installations where there are a
> > lot more ports and they are generally less reliable.
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> I am portmaster user from FreeBSD 7.0 and I want to switch to
> portupgrade. Should I expected some problems becaue everything is
> install with portmaster?

I use portupgrade and make whenever I want. I did not notice any
problems as portupgrade just looks at the installed ports and then
tries them to update via ports or packages. You have to tell
portupgrade what to use.

The main advantage for me is that it continues after errors and prints
a summary at the end. You can then try to fix the problem or wait for a
new ports tree in which the problem might be fixed. Important for me is
that portupgrade never left me with an unusable system. Worst case is
that nothing gets upgraded.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list