porteasy vs portupgrade

[Maxim Khitrov]

On 7/26/07, Eric <heli at mikestammer.com> wrote:
> Miguel wrote:
> > Adam J Richardson escribió:
> >> Miguel wrote:
> >>> Hi, i used to use portupgrade as using this instructions
> >>> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/11/29/Big_Scary_Daemons.html
> >>> for doing all the port managing, what about porteasy, it is as  good
> >>> as portupgrade?
> >>> i think porteasy is not as popular as portupgrade.
> >>> thanks
> >>
> >> Hi Miguel,
> >>
> >> I use portupgrade and portsnap, a combination which seems to work
> >> fine. The only thing that annoys me about portupgrade is that it's
> >> written in Ruby, and when it's time for an upgrade I always have to
> >> upgrade the Ruby compiler as well. Upgrading Ruby just takes forever
> >> on these old battered beige boxes.
> >>
> >
> > you are absolutly right, portsnap + portupgrade,
> > thakns
>
> try portmaster as a replacement to portupgrade. No dependencies and it
> works great.

Do you simply use 'portmaster -a' to update everything? I've tried
using it a few times, but it never recompiled ports that depend on the
one being updated. I recall there was an option to do that, but you
had to specify each port manually for that to work. How do you get it
to update all out-of-date ports and recompile everything depending on
those ports?