Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:43:50 +0200 From: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> To: Todd Stephens <tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port installation methods Message-ID: <20030927234350.GB94873@dds.nl> In-Reply-To: <200309271659.50019.tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> References: <200309271659.50019.tbstep@tampabay.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0400, Todd Stephens wrote: > Is there any benefit to using the standard 'make' method of installing > ports over the 'portinstall' command (or portupgrade -N), or > vice-versa? If you've just installed a fresh FreeBSD system then there isn't much difference. I offten use the make method in this case. But I switch to portinstall and portupgrade if I a) have updated /usr/ports and b) have installed any port or package. The reason for this is that portinstall and portupgrade have a better port management system. This package/port detects for you changes. With out the portupgrade package you will find that multiple version of the same packages will be registered and only one is installed. (There is only one installed because each override the other fysicaly in /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 but not in the regerstry.) -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030927234350.GB94873>