Jonathan Arnold writes:
> So there are three competing technologies - portupgrade,
> portmaster, and portmanage. And I'm not even sure what any of
> them offer over the simple 'make install clean' method.
Simple make/make install will take care of upstream
dependencies; portupgrade (a
Eric wrote:
i find portmaster > all. give it a whirl. No dependencies, its actively
maintained, etc.
Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about that one. So there are three competing
technologies - portupgrade, portmaster, and portmanage. And I'm not
even sure what any of them offer over the simple 'make i
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Tuesday October 17, 2006 at 08:47:27 (AM) Jonathan Arnold wrote:
I'm confused - what is sort of the consensus pick for "best" port
tool? Usually, I just cd /usr/ports// and do a 'make install clean',
but I've also tried portmanager and portupgrade, but I'm not
On Tuesday October 17, 2006 at 08:47:27 (AM) Jonathan Arnold wrote:
> I'm confused - what is sort of the consensus pick for "best" port
> tool? Usually, I just cd /usr/ports// and do a 'make install clean',
> but I've also tried portmanager and portupgrade, but I'm not sure when to
> pref
I'm confused - what is sort of the consensus pick for "best" port
tool? Usually, I just cd /usr/ports// and do a 'make install clean',
but I've also tried portmanager and portupgrade, but I'm not sure when to
prefer one to another. Should I stick with one? Will mixing & matching
confuse t
