Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:13:36 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Dick Hoogendijk <dick@nagual.nl> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: port upgrading Message-ID: <4C9F7F40.60407@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4C9F74DD.6000009@nagual.nl> References: <4C9F74DD.6000009@nagual.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE8AC7BCD119119C371199CEB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 26/09/2010 17:29:17, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > I'm in doubt. I wanted to bring my ports collection uptodate, so I ran= > "csup -L 2 /root/ports-supfile" and that updated my ports collection. A= t > least, I hope so. >=20 > Then I started googling and found that cvsup is not recommended. Better= > tot use portsnap (???) > And also portupgrade was a no go. I should be using portmaster. >=20 > Woh, I'm confused now. > Question: what is best used to have an up2date ports collection nowaday= s? > This system is FreeBSD8/amd64. csup(1) works fine and there's no good reasons not to use it. portsnap(1) also works fine, and there aren't any obvious problems that mean you shouldn't use it either. There is one somewhat subtle difference, which won't affect most people. 'portsnap extract' will blow away any custom files (Makefile.local, extra patches etc.) that you've added to the ports tree. csup(1) leaves them put. Obviously, either of the two methods will revert any modifications you've made to any files already known to be part of the ports tree. Once you've updated the tree, then you've got several choices for updating your installed ports. portupgrade(1) and portmaster(1) are the leading candidates there: portupgrade probably still has the edge on features, although development seems to be stuttering a bit recently. portmaster wins on simplicity -- it's a shell script with no other dependencies -- but still packs an awful lot of good stuff into approximately 3600 lines. Doug B is actively working on it and very responsive to bug reports etc. Really either of those two will serve you well, as will various others I haven't mentioned. Try them out, see which is most to your taste. There isn't any one 'best' solution that everyone is enjoined to use. That's not the BSD way: "Tools, not policy." There are several solutions that you can use, and it's up to you to select which one you prefer. Sure, people having strong opinions on the subject have posted their thoughts on various fora, but don't be misled: those are individual opinions, and not an official position. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enigE8AC7BCD119119C371199CEB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyff0kACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwYvgCfTmMx7IAobX6tbQgxH9wh7ngK xsUAnj9SeRSYN0dySbGNt7mWCDztcpIu =7tK1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE8AC7BCD119119C371199CEB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9F7F40.60407>