Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:08:41 -0400 From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@comcast.net> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using Portupgrade? Message-ID: <E1KPqR7-0002iX-0Y@daland.home> In-Reply-To: <20080804022618.GA4790@eos.sc1.parodius.com> (message from Jeremy Chadwick on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 19:26:18 -0700) References: <696148549.2959541217812741596.JavaMail.root@mail3.gatech.edu> <1938178730.2959681217812808135.JavaMail.root@mail3.gatech.edu> <20080804022618.GA4790@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
,--- You/Jeremy (Sun, 3 Aug 2008 19:26:18 -0700) ----*
| I'd start by ceasing use of portupgrade. Try Doug Barton's portmaster,
| which is in ports/ports-mgmt/portmaster. It's an extensive shell
| script, and does not require ruby.
Over the last couple of months, I've made a few shy attempts to switch
from `portupgrade' to 'portmaster', but every time I try it, I find
something that keeps me using the former.
Don't remember everything of that sort but here are a couple of things
I would like to ask portmaster users' opinion and advice about:
1. I see a significant difference in the time it takes to get the same
information using the two tools:
------------------------------
# time portversion -v | wc -l
473
real 0m3.772s
user 0m2.462s
sys 0m1.114s
# time portmaster -L | wc -l
488
real 0m50.042s
user 0m29.762s
sys 0m15.470s
------------------------------
I run `portversion' a lot, and this kind of performance difference
is one argument for sticking with `portupgrade'.
2. It looks like there are no `portmaster' equivalents to
`portupgrade' `-P' and `-PP' options, which I want to have.
Is this something that can be resolved by a smarter use of
`portmaster' and/or its documentation?
Thanks,
-- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net --
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1KPqR7-0002iX-0Y>