From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 13 02:21:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A817E106566C for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 130478FC0A for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 02:21:45 -0000 Received: from f055058105.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO mandree.no-ip.org) [78.55.58.105] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 13 Apr 2012 04:21:45 +0200 X-Authenticated: #428038 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19EIbt/rDdEIQQyU9c4RDV2eSj/XkN/r610jqX/C4 Ycy+YRDU7psM7M Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57CD23CEAF for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:21:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F878DB8.5010600@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:21:44 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4F863615.80203@shatow.net> <4F864EEE.4010508@p6m7g8.com> <4F869CD2.2040702@onetel.com> <20120412160256.0feac5cf@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120412160256.0feac5cf@scorpio> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: ports-mgmt/portupgrade - Deprecated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:53 -0000 Am 12.04.2012 22:02, schrieb Jerry: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:13:54 +0100 > Chris Whitehouse articulated: > >> I'm only a lurker and lowly user but could I humbly request that >> portmanager is brought back into use? It's simple to use and does >> what it does extremely well and without fuss. I think the fact that >> it still "just works" after all this time is a mark of it's worth. > > I totally agree. While I do use "portupgrade" from time to time, > "portmanager" seems to fix problems that "portupgrade" can't and that > "portmaster" just makes worse. Plus, "portmanager" is much faster than > "portmaster" I'm pretty sure that Doug Barton would be quite interested to read concise and detailed descriptions of situations where portmaster makes problems worse. I've been using portmaster for quite a while now without functional issues. It has the occasional usability quirk, doesn't attempt to recover from a build issue (unlike portupgrade). That proves nothing, of course, particularly not the absense of bugs, might be that I'm lucky or not using buggy functions... The point I'm trying to make is that portmaster alone is quite reliable for me -- YMMV -- but then again I'm not mixing portupgrade in. I'm not sure how much testing Doug has done when portmaster is supposed to repair damage that portupgrade might have inflicted earlier.