Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:08:17 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portmanager vs portupgrade Message-ID: <20140123130817.7c75dc70@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <52E10D9F.7050003@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <52E0FE75.9010504@webrz.net> <52E10D9F.7050003@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:39:59 +0000 Matthew Seaman wrote: > maintained by the same people (bdrewery mostly). portupgrade requires > you to install ruby as well: that's probably the biggest deciding > factor still extant. For me the biggest factor is that portupgrade doesn't stop on the first error, it carries on building ports that don't depend on failed ports and then presents a summary of the problems at the end. This is a big advantage on desktop installations where there are a lot more ports and they are generally less reliable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140123130817.7c75dc70>