/usr/ports & portupgrade when only using packages

[Michael C. Cambria]

Mel wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:42:55 Michael C. Cambria wrote:
>   
>> I need to set up a system that can only use packages.   I've always used
>> ports, so I'm not exactly sure if I'm doing things properly.
>>
>> Should I (do I need to) use portsnap to populate /usr/ports?  Unless I
>> really need something that doesn't have a pkg available, I will not be
>> using ports.
>>
>> I've always used portupgrade, and plan to do so, using -PP (only
>> packages) for this setup.  My first question is should I?
>>     
>
> It needs the ports tree to know which packages to *upgrade*. I know of no 
> ports management system that is able to use only binary and no ports tree. If 
> you need to save space, consider mounting /usr/ports via nfs.
>
>   
My goal isn't to save space.  I don't have the cpu power to build all 
these (and multiple times) on each machine.

Reading the man pages and the handbook about using packages didn't say 
anything about needing /usr/ports, so before I went and used portsnap 
etc. I thought I'd ask first.

[deleted]
> You could manage with pkg_add/pkg_delete, but then:
> 1) *You* have to find out which packages are eligible for upgrading
> 2) Upgrading a package will mean delete the old version before installing the 
> new one
> 3) *You* will have to backup libraries manually.
>
> (Yes, I realize portupgrade does this)
>   
Yup, that's the point of my wanting to use portupgrade ;-)   It's worked 
OK for me since it's inception.

Thanks,
MikeC