Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:50:04 -0600 From: Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: porteasy vs portupgrade Message-ID: <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv> In-Reply-To: <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us> References: <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv> <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adam J Richardson escribió: > Miguel wrote: >> Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions >> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html >> for doing all the port managing, what about porteasy, it is as good >> as portupgrade? >> i think porteasy is not as popular as portupgrade. >> thanks > > Hi Miguel, > > I use portupgrade and portsnap, a combination which seems to work > fine. The only thing that annoys me about portupgrade is that it's > written in Ruby, and when it's time for an upgrade I always have to > upgrade the Ruby compiler as well. Upgrading Ruby just takes forever > on these old battered beige boxes. > you are absolutly right, portsnap + portupgrade, thakns
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8B49C.6070903>