On 07/25/2011 03:42, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:14:19PM +0200 I heard the voice of
> Michal Varga, and lo! it spake thus:
>>
>> I have no objections in [portmaster's] promotion to new users as the
>> new, one and only "approved" way of managing ports, but this in no
>> way cuts it for currently deployed portupgrade setups, where
>> portupgrade works 'just fine' (and can work the same for years to
>> come).
>
> +1
>
> For all its troubles (and certainly they are legion), portupgrade gets
> along with what I try to do. portmaster does 90%, and I fight it
> tooth and nail on the last 10% (or would, if I didn't just use
> portmaster instead), because what it's trying to do just doesn't quite
> match what I'm trying to do.
It would be interesting to hear what 10% of stuff you are fighting with
portmaster to accomplish.
> (also, it's really nice having portupgrade around for upgrading
> portmaster, and portmaster for upgrading portupgrade or ruby*. Even
> if neither is strictly necessary, it's still very comfortable and
> comforting ;)
portmaster can update itself just fine, FYI.
hth,
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
