If I have portmanager, do I need portupgrade?

Chris Hodgins chodgins at cis.strath.ac.uk
Sun Mar 13 12:52:04 PST 2005


Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 12:38 pm, you wrote:
> 
>>Michael C. Shultz wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday 13 March 2005 12:05 pm, Fafa Diliha Romanova wrote:
>>>
>>>>If I just do:
>>>>
>>>>cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/cvsupfile && portmanager -u
>>>>
>>>>Do I need portupgrade at all then?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Not for upgrading.  portsclean (a part of portsupgrade package) is
>>>a nice feature of portupgrade, so is pkg_which and a few others so
>>>I keep portupgrade around just the same.
>>>
>>>-Mike
>>
>>How long does it take to run portmanager.  Is it a similar amount of
>>time as portupgrade for each run?
>>
>>Chris
> 
> 
> That is a tough question here is how it tends to work for me:
> 
> First I run it everyday since I'm developing it I have to know if there
> is anything changed in ports that is going to cause portmanager to
> crash.  Most days it takes less than an hour, but sometimes when
> just one lower level port like gettext for example is updated it may
> take 24 hours to finish.  I'm using a 1ghz machine with both gnome
> and kde (all together about 300 installed ports) as an example.
> 
> Here is exactly how portmanager works:
> 
> First dependent ports that are out of date are upgraded, then everything
> that depends on them are upgraded.  portupgrade does not work this same 
> way so the time comparison is very tough to predict.
> 
> -Mike
> 

Ah I see.  So portmanager is sort of doing the equivelant to:
portupgrade -fr myOutOfDatePort ??

Does this not mean it will always be slower than portupgrade?  If it a 
low-level port it is going to take ages but if it is high-level it will 
start to get closer to the time it takes for portupgrade to run.  Never 
faster?  Or am I missing something.

Is there a reason it does it this way over portupgrades method?

Chris


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list