portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade?

[Chris H]

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Chris H wrote:
>
>> But it installed (pulled in) far more than those dependencies actually required.
>
> It may bring in build dependencies, but should be no different than
> manually installing ports.
>
>> I believe, due to the fact that it doesn't appear to honor the original build
>> options recorded in /var/db/ports/<portname>/options. Nor, do I recall that it
>> honored /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed?
>
> Both portupgrade and portmaster did and do honor these.  Both are
> automated versions of installing the ports manually.  That can be
> overridden with mis-recommended BATCH variable.  Don't do that.
>
>> I don't see it. Oh, and should it not have been clear; I _do_
>> anticipate the "upgrade" to re-build most everything, as that is why
>> I'm trying to find a "mass upgrader" port, to do the "dirty work".
>> Also should it not have been clear in the beginning; I am _not_ doing
>> anything more than upgrading everything _within_ my current version;
>> eg; no major point upgrade, or anything.
>
> Okay, look up the last time you installed or upgraded a port:
> % ls -ltr /var/db/pkg
>
> The last one is the most recently modified.  Update your ports tree,
> follow all the steps that apply to your system since that date.  If any
> ports are left to upgrade at the end, use either port upgrade program
> with "-a".
>
> I recommend portmaster.  It does almost everything portupgrade does, but
> without the overhead of Ruby or bdb.
Greetings Warren, and thank you for your reply.

Sounds like the plan. I'll take your advice, and run with it.
Gave me just the confidence I needed. :)

Thanks again, for taking the time to reply.

--Chris

> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>