From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 19:10:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678A01065678 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:10:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cwhiteh@onetel.com) Received: from april.london.02.net (april.london.02.net [87.194.255.143]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032478FC1F for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from muji2.config (93.97.24.219) by april.london.02.net (8.5.016.1) id 4B79C263025E19C6 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4C055B0C.3060704@onetel.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:10:04 +0100 From: Chris Whitehouse User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <28736514.post@talk.nabble.com> <20100601054216.256514a3@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20100601054216.256514a3@scorpio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: What's the difference between portupgrade and portmaster ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:10:03 -0000 Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:26:18 +0300 > Eitan Adler articulated: > > >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:37 AM, zaxis wrote: >>> Why do we need two tools ? >>> >> Its three. Add portmanager. >> >> The answer is personal choice and we number of bikesheds. >> >> Also portmaster used to not be able to work with packages when >> portupgrade could. > > I use portmanager with the '-p' flag for when I absolutely, positively > have to insure that all dependencies are updated correctly. Neither of > the other two utilities seem to get it correct 100% of the time. Plus, > portmanmager is written in 'C' and IMHO is quicker than the other two. > > Just my 2ยข. > +1 for including portmanager in any list of port management tools, just doesn't get 'official' sanction for some reason. Chris