Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:49:07 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> To: Frank Leonhardt <freebsd-doc@fjl.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Doing the deed" on portupgrade Message-ID: <CADLo83_7p-JZTRBH4Az_TZo6K8YMrUN8TWewNV=TnFM1ApZcyA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F869F33.1010501@fjl.co.uk> References: <CADLo839V4BtuRF-ze6qS3xvU1kYsi_7KoChP7WFaYx5D59oZBA@mail.gmail.com> <20120412090309.GK26895@goofy01.vnodelab.local> <4F869F33.1010501@fjl.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 April 2012 09:24, Frank Leonhardt <freebsd-doc@fjl.co.uk> wrote: > On 12/04/2012 10:03, Joel Dahl wrote: >> >> On 12-04-2012 =A08:26, Chris Rees wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Even since its deprecation, portupgrade has proven to be very popular >>> with newcomers, which I might be inclined to blame on the fact that >>> the Handbook lists it first. >>> >>> Two patches: > > >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>> Rendered at http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/rendered/portupgrade.html >>> >>> Thoughts? =A0Anyone want to risk approving it? >> >> Good idea. I'd like to see Portmaster first in the list though, and not >> Portmanager. >> > > The text on the rendered version opens with "Portmanager is *another* > utility for easy upgrading when it's now the first to be mentioned. New patches, effectively reversing the order of the three: http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/move-portupgrade2.diff and then the content changes: http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/deprecate-portupgrade2.diff (I noticed my misspelling of portupgrade :/) Rendered at: http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/rendered/portupgrade2.html > Not knowing very much about this system, I've always been a little confus= ed > by the multifarious options in the documentation like this. Listing them = in > order of preference would help but it'd be nice to start a section like t= his > with the pros and cons of the various strategies about to be outlined . T= he > reason for not using portupgrade is clear; Portmaster looks a good option > because it implies it won't drag in every scripting language and module > under the sun when you build it (according to the documentation posted). = So > why would anyone use Portmanager? (Incidentally, I have always used > portupgrade, simply because it's first on the list). > Yes, this section does need improving a little. My intention here is to stop the plethora of people asking for support on portupgrade after they've seen it in the Handbook listed first; you have just said that the same happened to you :) If you have such a list, it will be gladly received. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_7p-JZTRBH4Az_TZo6K8YMrUN8TWewNV=TnFM1ApZcyA>