portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade?

[chrish at UltimateDNS.NET]

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chris H wrote:
>> Greetings, and thank you for your reply.
>>
>> I understand that portupgrade _will_ pull in other dependencies _as
>> needed_ -- I _do_ read the man(1) pages. :)
>>
>> But it installed (pulled in) far more than those dependencies
>> actually required.  I believe, due to the fact that it doesn't
>> appear to honor the original build options recorded in
>> /var/db/ports/<portname>/options. Nor, do I recall that it honored
>> /etc/make.conf -- make.conf(5). Maybe things have changed?
>
> You may have asked portupgrade to use packages first and fall back
> to building from source.  That would install the packages which were
> built with the default options on the package building cluster.  It
> saves time; but I don't like mixing packages with build from source,
> especially when I want custom options on anything.
>
> --
> Scott Lambert                    KC5MLE                       Unix SysAdmin
> lambert at lambertfam.org
Greetings Scott, and thank you for the reply.

You may be right. Like I said, it's been awhile.
I don't like mixing things either. I have more than enough to think about, as it is.
Why try adding any additional unnecessary elements to reconcile.

I'm gonna give portmaster a try, I think. Seems to have more positive comments.
But, in all fairness to portupgrade; it may have been a misunderstanding on my part.

Thanks again, for taking the time to respond.

--Chris

> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>