Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:16:05 +0400 From: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports manager vs. portupgrade Message-ID: <cb5206420510290416t406b3e0cgf3a9a2f2cec26390@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051029064707.8641.GERARD@seibercom.net> References: <07d601c5dc20$6ea97270$37cba1cd@emerytelcom.com> <20051029064707.8641.GERARD@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/29/05, Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net> wrote: > 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? > > > > I've always used portupgrade and it works pretty well, but I'm curious = as to > > how ports manager compares. > > > > Elliot > > > ***** 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. > > -- > > A: Because it reverses the natural flow of a dialog. > Q: Why is top posting undesirable when replying? > > TOPIC: Posting Etiquet > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" > Portmanager is based on a very good idea, but it still lacks many features of PU, and at times it is a bit slower. I'm sure, as it matures, it will become a very handy tool, hopefully a lot faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420510290416t406b3e0cgf3a9a2f2cec26390>