Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:54:20 +0000 From: Alistair Sutton <alistair.sutton@gmail.com> To: Eric Kjeldergaard <kjelderg@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: Standard way of updating 6.x ? Message-ID: <fa8f05950601312354j6d55df91r@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200602011133.53031.kjelderg@gmail.com> References: <bdf25fde0601310831qfda3239j8da895b74868e12@mail.gmail.com> <93676E29-4F0E-40DC-904C-225A859D0B78@u.washington.edu> <200602010156.57750.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <200602011133.53031.kjelderg@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/02/06, Eric Kjeldergaard <kjelderg@gmail.com> wrote: > Wednesday 01 February 2006 10:56、RW さんは書きました: > > On Tuesday 31 January 2006 17:45, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Xn Nooby wrote: > > > > > > portupgrade: Use for updating your actual ports programs. > > > > > > There may be a more elegant solution though and I would be more than > > > happy to hear it too :). > > > -Garrett > > > > I find that portmanager generally does a better job at keeping ports up to > > date without manual intervention. A notable example being its ability to > > upgrade Gnome without the help of a script. > > I also found portupgrade both more capable in many cases and more easy-to-use > (just portmanager -u to do what one "usually" wants to do). Too bad it was > pulled from ports. It added back into ports very shortly after it was pulled. Quite what its future is going to be do though I don't know as the author now seems to be concentrating on Linux as being portmanager's main platform. Al -- GPG/PGP: http://www.no-dns-yet.org.uk/~everlone/pubkey.gpg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fa8f05950601312354j6d55df91r>