Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There is no clear answer which one to use on the net. Tried searching but couldn't dig up anything useful. Also, the user manual mentions them altogether, won't list the advantages/disadvantages, which is better, etc.

Sadly the webpages are also mostly dead. I'd like to ask the community which one to use.
The ones I found:
http://dougbarton.us/portmaster.html
http://portmanager.sourceforge.net/
http://wiki.freebsd.org/portupgrade

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Turns out people both use PortMaster and Portupgrade. Sad thing ports were broken when I tried my first upgrade. :}

share|improve this answer

I used to use portupgrade, but after portmaster had been out for a while I switched over and didn't look back: it just seems to Do The Right Thing as far as I'm concerned: it collects all the messages (pkg-message) that ports like to display into a single list to display at the end, and it does all the configuring of options up-front. From what I've read I believe a lot of other people prefer it too.

share|improve this answer

portupgrade is the former best choice, when portmaster was not existing. It still is a more complete product, but I find that portmaster is nowadays complete enough with the most used features (as in "I didn't need portugprade in the last few months at all") and, being a shell script, has no dependencies and is a breeze to install.

share|improve this answer
    
nowadays it's usual to use pkg install for binary packages, too. – lapo Feb 11 at 16:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .