Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:04:47 -0400 From: Todd Stephens <tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> To: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port installation methods Message-ID: <200309272104.47949.tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20030927234350.GB94873@dds.nl> References: <200309271659.50019.tbstep@tampabay.rr.com> <20030927234350.GB94873@dds.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 September 2003 07:43 pm, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > > If you've just installed a fresh FreeBSD system then there isn't > much difference. I offten use the make method in this case. But I > switch to portinstall and portupgrade if I a) have updated /usr/ports > and b) have installed any port or package. The reason for this is > that portinstall and portupgrade have a better port management > system. This package/port detects for you changes. With out the > portupgrade package you will find that multiple version of the same > packages will be registered and only one is installed. (There is only > one installed because each override the other fysicaly in /usr/local > and /usr/X11R6 but not in the regerstry.) I see. I have already run into that (having 2 versions of a package registered but only one installed). I have recently started using portinstall for installing ports. I have been using portupgrade for a while now. It seems to me that portinstall (as you indicated) is better at finding and fixing dependency issues as well. -- Todd Stephens "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309272104.47949.tbstep>