Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:50:16 +0000 From: Jason Henson <jason@ec.rr.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If I have portmanager, do I need portupgrade? Message-ID: <1110765016l.17082l.1l@BARTON> In-Reply-To: <4234A933.10301@cis.strath.ac.uk> (from chodgins@cis.strath.ac.uk on Sun Mar 13 15:57:23 2005) References: <20050313200543.B290F4BE6D@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <200503131220.02607.ringworm01@gmail.com> <4234A4C5.2090109@cis.strath.ac.uk><4234A933.10301@cis.strath.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/13/05 15:57:23, Chris Hodgins wrote: > Michael C. Shultz wrote: >> On Sunday 13 March 2005 12:38 pm, you wrote: >>=20 >>> Michael C. Shultz wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Sunday 13 March 2005 12:05 pm, Fafa Diliha Romanova wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> If I just do: >>>>>=20 >>>>> cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/cvsupfile && portmanager -u >>>>>=20 >>>>> Do I need portupgrade at all then? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks. >>>>=20 >>>> Not for upgrading. portsclean (a part of portsupgrade package) is >>>> a nice feature of portupgrade, so is pkg_which and a few others so >>>> I keep portupgrade around just the same. >>>>=20 >>>> -Mike >>>=20 >>> How long does it take to run portmanager. Is it a similar amount =20 >>> of >>> time as portupgrade for each run? >>>=20 >>> Chris >>=20 >>=20 >> That is a tough question here is how it tends to work for me: >>=20 >> First I run it everyday since I'm developing it I have to know if =20 >> there >> is anything changed in ports that is going to cause portmanager to >> crash. Most days it takes less than an hour, but sometimes when >> just one lower level port like gettext for example is updated it may >> take 24 hours to finish. I'm using a 1ghz machine with both gnome >> and kde (all together about 300 installed ports) as an example. >>=20 >> Here is exactly how portmanager works: >>=20 >> First dependent ports that are out of date are upgraded, then =20 >> everything >> that depends on them are upgraded. portupgrade does not work this =20 >> same way so the time comparison is very tough to predict. >>=20 >> -Mike >> >=20 > Ah I see. So portmanager is sort of doing the equivelant to: > portupgrade -fr myOutOfDatePort ?? >=20 > Does this not mean it will always be slower than portupgrade? If it =20 > a low-level port it is going to take ages but if it is high-level it =20 > will start to get closer to the time it takes for portupgrade to run. =20 > Never faster? Or am I missing something. >=20 > Is there a reason it does it this way over portupgrades method? >=20 > Chris > _______________________________________________ I think there is no big difference between just running portupgrade vs =20 portmanager. I would say portmanager is better and faster because you =20 don't need to baby sit, it is really automagical, and there is no =20 messing with an index. To upgrade one high level port will take that =20 same time on both, if you don't have to pkgdb -F or fiddle with the =20 index. If it is a low level port portmanager will likely take longer, =20 but get it done right the first time. If portupgrade finishes first it =20 likely missed some cross dependancies and you will have to do it by =20 hand after you have done some trouble shooting. The best part about =20 portmanager for is NO RUBY!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1110765016l.17082l.1l>