Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Portupgrade on FreeBSD

Posted by michael on from the up-and-up dept.

BSD Forums writes "In her previous article, OnLamp's Dru Lavigne took a look at the built-in utilities that can be used to manage the FreeBSD ports collection. In this article, she'd like to continue in that vein. She takes a look at portupgrade, a feature-rich port designed to help you get the most out of the ports collection."

4 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. portupgrade is a port by JDizzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing that tweaks me is that portupgrade should be part of the base system. Portupgrade and friends should be writen in something aside from ruby (becuse we dont' want ruby in base). It is probably the most usefull and powerfull package/port managment tool ever created since the freebsd ports is already the best package system in all of open source. FreeBSD ports is always immitated, yet never replicated in full glory. It nice that portupgrade traces down dependancies automatically (forward, or reverse), and can cleanout stale lib's and such.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:portupgrade is a port by drdink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Portupgrade should not be part of the base system. If you look, you'll see that CVSup is not part of the base system, either. CVSup is the tool you use to update both your source and ports trees, and it isn't part of the base! I believe the current mindset among many is that the base should be smaller, and more should be offloaded to ports. For example, Sendmail shouldn't be part of the base system. Ports are a great tool, but they are not a necessary part of the system.

      --
      Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
  2. No by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ports tree is good. Better than the base system; stuff in the ports tree is split into nice self-contained packages, while the base system is a single monolithic mess.

    We need to hack parts of the base system off and put them into ports (like kerberos), not add more stuff into the base system.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
  3. Re:Wow by pillohead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you a developer? I can't think of a reason why you need to cvsup nightly. Also you can have one machine do the cvsup then export /usr/ports via nfs to the other machines.

    I wouldn't edit the /etc/defaults/make.conf, in fact I wouldn't edit anything in the /etc/defaults folder. Copy that file to /etc/make.conf it will override the default without altering it.