Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:38:36 +0000 From: Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster? Message-ID: <BN6PR2001MB173012B1DBBC7BB0A900DAA2807E0@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <77334fc4-b64e-45ed-a443-4076e47acee3@BY2NAM03FT029.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com> References: <81D84A650858BA40BF6936408052E6BC0138263988@msgdb11.utad.utoledo.edu> <k20i-pniy-wny@FreeBSD.org> <77334fc4-b64e-45ed-a443-4076e47acee3@BY2NAM03FT029.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:00:02 +0000, Thomas Mueller stated: >Excerpt from Jan Beich: > >> Why did portupgrade skip rebuilding print/harfbuzz-icu before building >> editors/libreoffice? The dependency trees of most desktop applications >> are so complex that the build falls apart if the upgrade tools aren't >> robust enough e.g., ignore MOVED or PORTREVISION bumps. =20 > =20 >> In short, this is a reminder portmaster/portupgrade are NOT supported. >> Users are on their own debugging such issues. =20 > >What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster? > >I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster? > >What is one officially supposed to use to build and upgrade packages from >source? > >Synth, poudriere, any others? > >Tom Years ago, I was a strong supporter of "portmanager". It just worked when others failed. They when its support wained, I started using "portupgrade".= I tried "portmaster", but it just failed way to often for my tastes. However, after updating to FreeBSD-11, I have used "synth" exclusively. It = is fast, through and hasn't failed me yet. It took me a while to understand al= l of its nuances, like how to use a "make.conf" file with it; however, it was worth it. I would highly recommend it. --=20 Carmel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BN6PR2001MB173012B1DBBC7BB0A900DAA2807E0>