From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 24 07:16:53 2004 Return-Path: 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 CA72516A4CE for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:16:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5677043D31 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:16:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jayobrien@worldnet.att.net) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (dsl093-180-184.sac1.dsl.speakeasy.net[66.93.180.184]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004122407164811200mhgkje> (Authid: jayobrien@att.net); Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:16:48 +0000 Message-ID: <41CBC255.2070309@att.net> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:16:37 -0800 From: Jay O'Brien User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael C. Shultz" References: <41CBB0D6.6080807@att.net> <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <200412232241.11509.reso3w83@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade vs. portmanager X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:16:53 -0000 Michael C. Shultz wrote: > On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:01 pm, Jay O'Brien wrote: > >>I'm running 5.3 RELEASE and trying to learn. I did a ports cvsup. >>Following the Dru Lavigne article on portupgrade at >>http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD_Basics.html?page=1 >>I installed portupgrade and then ran portsdb -Uu. It errored out, >>telling me that I shouldn't use my "refuse" file that stopped the >>non- english docs and ports from being loaded on my HD. >> >>In trying to understand this issue, I found portmanager, and it looks >>like it would perform the same function as portupgrade. >> >>My questions: Is there a way around the "refuse" file prohibition, >>perhaps with portmanager? Does portmanager replace portupgrade? > > > portmanager doesn't require the INDEX files to keep ports up to date, so > the refuse file is a non issue with it. > > -Mike > Sounds good. What's the downside, if any, to using portmanager instead of portupgrade? Jay