* Jeremy C. Reed <reed@reedmedia.net> [0555 01:55]:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005, Dick Davies wrote:
> 
> > Hate to say it, but if you really want to compare the two you need to
> > maintain them for six months.
> >
> > pkgsrc tends to lag a bit behind the ports tree for updates and security
> > fixes in my experience
> 
> I personally use pkgsrc on my FreeBSD systems because for some the
> software I use, pkgsrc is more up-to-date.
> 
> But I guess it depends on the software:

Oh certainly, my main bugbears are exim and openldap which are both very
out of date now - I sent patches to exim months ago and eventually gave up.

> >, and portupgrade handles complicated dependencies
> > far, far better than 'make update'.
> 
> portupgrade and "make update" should not be compared. portupgrade is an
> extra tool and could be compared with pkg_chk instead.

Maybe I just need to RTFM on that - pkg_comp too with its chrooted builds
sounds promising, but I haven't investigated it.

make update should be removed IMO, I've found it the best way to break a server
too many times.

-- 
'The State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things
 badly, does small things badly too.'
		-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns