Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:43:13 -0500 From: Eric <heli@mikestammer.com> To: Miguel <mmiranda@123.com.sv> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: porteasy vs portupgrade Message-ID: <46A8B301.7080903@mikestammer.com> In-Reply-To: <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv> References: <46A7E417.5040800@123.com.sv> <46A8144C.7010503@crackmonkey.us> <46A8B49C.6070903@123.com.sv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Miguel wrote: > Adam J Richardson escribió: >> Miguel wrote: >>> Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions >>> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html >>> for doing all the port managing, what about porteasy, it is as good >>> as portupgrade? >>> i think porteasy is not as popular as portupgrade. >>> thanks >> >> Hi Miguel, >> >> I use portupgrade and portsnap, a combination which seems to work >> fine. The only thing that annoys me about portupgrade is that it's >> written in Ruby, and when it's time for an upgrade I always have to >> upgrade the Ruby compiler as well. Upgrading Ruby just takes forever >> on these old battered beige boxes. >> > > you are absolutly right, portsnap + portupgrade, > thakns > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" try portmaster as a replacement to portupgrade. No dependencies and it works great.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A8B301.7080903>