why recommend "portmaster -af" for full port rebuild?

[Benjamin Kaduk]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:55:31PM +0000, Andrew Hamilton-Wright wrote:
> 
> Dear FreeBSD Docs,
> 
> On the upgrading/updating page:
>     https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.html
> there is a line that recommends using
>     portmaster -af
> to rebuild all of the ports.  There is even a recommendation that '-G' be added to avoid interaction involving configuration screens.
> 
> This, however, ignores the many other interactions that portmaster still will require.
> 
> Is there no way to rebuild the ports without interaction?  It seems that even with
>     portmaster -afG --no-confirm -y
> I still get a long parade of interaction requests -- far more than I would if I used portupgrade.
> 
> I will note that Doug Barton, the author of portmaster, seems to advise against using it in this form, as noted in this thread:
>     https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2009-August/051623.html
> 
> 
> Why is portmaster being recommended on this page, and if this is the best option, why is there no discussion of the many interactions that will be required (in spite of the implication of the discussion of the '-G' option)?

Does this hold even when one picks one of -D or -d?  (I mostly assume that
it is implicitly expected that any portmaster user will get so frustrated
by those prompts that they set an appropriate configuration entry to
make them automatically.)

Regardless, it may be worth considering documenting poudriere over
portmaster or other alternatives, as I'm given to understand that it
presents a smoother experience.

-Ben