Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

from Jonathan Chen and my previous post: > On 30 April 2018 at 22:33, Thomas Mueller wrote: [...] > > I see hardly any mention of synth on the freebsd-ports list. Have synth > > users become disenchanted? > There are a growing number of synth users. They just

portmaster plans (was: Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster)

Am 30.04.18 um 12:33 schrieb Thomas Mueller: > Current portmaster, even before FLAVORS, was clumsy upgrading a large number > of ports, especially when there is an upgrade of perl or png. The author of portmaster decided to abort the upgrade of all remaining ports, if any dependency failed for

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

On 30 April 2018 at 22:33, Thomas Mueller wrote: [...] > I see hardly any mention of synth on the freebsd-ports list. Have synth > users become disenchanted? There are a growing number of synth users. They just don't appear on the list 'cause the software just works. >

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:33:48 +, Thomas Mueller stated: >from STefan Esser: > >> I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction >> of the new package tools), but then mobed over to using portmaster. > >> When the package system (PKG-NG) war completely reworked, I

Re: portupgrade vs. portmaster

from STefan Esser: > I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction > of the new package tools), but then mobed over to using portmaster. > When the package system (PKG-NG) war completely reworked, I heard that > portupgrade was better adapted to the new tools, but did

portupgrade vs. portmaster (was: Re: Port directory not found:)

Am 30.04.18 um 05:45 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > portmaster(8) operates very similarly to portupgrade(8). There are some > differences that can bite you, though, so read the man page first. I used to be a portupgrade user, long ago (years before the introduction of the new package tools), but then