Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:50:51 +0200 From: Michal Varga <varga.michal@gmail.com> To: Tilman =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Keskin=F6z?= <arved@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated? Message-ID: <1311583851.1812.81.camel@xenon> In-Reply-To: <4E2D1C36.7060400@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAF6rxg=TfxbKJwbcm6_c8P7m6%2B-pzvB9SpwKB99%2BLDe4OM%2BeLA@mail.gmail.com> <4E2D1C36.7060400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:33 +0200, Tilman Keskinöz wrote: > I am ok with switching the documentation to portmaster, but i am against > marking it DEPRECATED. I have been using portupdate for 10 years and it > works for all my usecases. > > Switching to portmaster means i have to learn new -options and new error > messages. Unless there is a killer feature in portmaster i don't see a > reason to switch. Basically, this. I'm on the very same boat, so to reiterate it again, from my point of view: 1. Portupgrade may have bugs, sure, but none of them are critical and every one I know about can be easily worked around whenever situation arises. Some of them are so old now that most regular users probably count them as features. 2. I too have been using portupdate for 10 years (hello!) and it works for all my usecases. 3. Switching to portmaster means retraining for a different *mission critical* software, that behaves differently, and that I currently have no need for, because the former one works fine. To point out a specific examply that I see frequently in UPDATING: If you use portmaster: # portmaster -r icu If you use portupgrade: # portupgrade -fr devel/icu Ok, sure, easy task.. Hey..what? In portupgrade, -r builds all my ports recursively and updates those which are out of date, where -f forces it to rebuild every single one along the path. Clear, right? So why is this different for portmaster? Where is my -f[orce] option? Will -r always rebuild everything? Or will it never, as it is with portupgrade without -f used? IF that's the case, how can my scripts recursively rebuild only needed stuff and...damn. Sure, by that time I spent on writing this email, I might have been halfway through portmaster documentation and have my questions answered, but that's obviously not the point - I just don't need, and don't want to. While portupgrade works (and it works), I don't want spending my time on cross-checking every single usecase between portmaster and portupgrade so that my upgrade scripts can safely play with the new popular kid on the block. Unless there is something fundamentally broken with portupgrade (other than a few open PRs) that prevents it from working on a modern FreeBSD system, I don't see a point in deprecation. Especially when portmaster is *NOT* a drop-in replacement. Again, from recent UPDATING: portmaster cannot process the upgrade of www/p5-libwww from version 5 to version 6. To upgrade p5-libwww, use portupgrade instead, or deinstall p5-libwww before reinstalling: If you use portmaster: # pkg_delete -f 'p5-libwww-5*' ; portmaster www/p5-libwww If you use portupgrade, no special treatment is necessary. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1311583851.1812.81.camel>