From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 29 10:49:37 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E561216A41F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:49:37 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gerard@seibercom.net)
Received: from smtp1.suscom.net (smtp1.suscom.net [64.78.119.248])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7875843D45
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:49:37 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gerard@seibercom.net)
Received: from localhost (smtp1 [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp1.suscom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03632D825E
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp1.suscom.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (smtp1 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP
	id 11472-01 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from seibercom.net (ip148.217.susc.suscom.net [216.45.217.148])
	by smtp1.suscom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C85CD825D
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (//gerard [192.168.0.2])
	by seibercom.net (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9TAnXEQ021041
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from gerard@seibercom.net)
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:49:35 -0400
From: Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sender: gerard@seibercom.net
Organization: Seibercom.net
In-Reply-To: <07d601c5dc20$6ea97270$37cba1cd@emerytelcom.com>
References: <07d601c5dc20$6ea97270$37cba1cd@emerytelcom.com>
X-Face: "\j?x](l|]4p?-1Bf@!wN<&p=$.}^k-HgL}cJKbQZ3r#Ar]\%U(#6}'?<3s7%(%(gxJxxcR
	nSNPNr*/^~StawWU9KDJ-CT0k$f#@t2^K&BS_f|?ZV/.7Q
Message-Id: <20051029064707.8641.GERARD@seibercom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.22.02 [en]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new .250  at suscom.net
Subject: Re: ports manager vs. portupgrade
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:49:38 -0000

On Friday, October 28, 2005 8:33:50 PM, "Elliot Finley" <efinleywork@efin=
ley.com>
Subject: ports manager vs. portupgrade
Wrote these words of wisdom:

> pros and cons anyone?
>=20
> I've always used portupgrade and it works pretty well, but I'm curious =
as to
> how ports manager compares.
>=20
> Elliot
>=20
***** REPLY SEPARATOR *****
On 10/11/2005 5:29:42 PM, Gerard Replied:

This is only my own opinion, but I find it does a better, more complete
job, without the hassle of creating Indexes, etc. Portmanager does not
use the indexes that portupgrade does, and therefore is not hampered by
them if they become corrupt, etc.

--=20

A: Because it reverses the natural flow of a dialog.
Q: Why is top posting undesirable when replying?

TOPIC: Posting Etiquet