Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

Stari Karp starikarp at
Mon Oct 2 21:32:18 UTC 2017

On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 12:26 +0300, abi wrote:
> 02.10.2017 12:07, Carmel NY пишет:
> > While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the
> > average
> > desktop user requirers.
> Building from ports is already more complex thing than one could
> expect 
> from desktop user. I don't think ports are recommended way to keep 
> system updated. It you use ports, you change port options (why would
> you 
> use them if not), so you are on narrower path - non-default options
> are 
> not QA tested, can conflict with each other and within dependency
> chain, etc
> > Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
> > part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports
> > maintenance"
> > program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and now
> > synth. At
> > this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before
> > abandoning synth
> > for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average user.
> You know, this is open source, right? You may  pick up ADA stack,
> I'm 
> sure J Marino will give you some ideas how to overcome ino64 issue.

Here is Marino's post on the FreeBSD forum about ino64 issue:

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list