Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:21:44 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-mgmt/portupgrade - Deprecated? Message-ID: <4F878DB8.5010600@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20120412160256.0feac5cf@scorpio> References: <4F863615.80203@shatow.net> <CAF6rxgn5O8LvUAL_EBdz0ji91ZE=ayX-fJVoNbx01YxoMCAWJg@mail.gmail.com> <4F864EEE.4010508@p6m7g8.com> <4F869CD2.2040702@onetel.com> <20120412160256.0feac5cf@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F878DB8.5010600>