From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 23 12:00:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0D916A400 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 12:00:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from pollux.dfwlp.com (rrcs-64-183-212-242.sw.biz.rr.com [64.183.212.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DEF13C458 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 12:00:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) Received: from athena.dfwlp.com (athena.dfwlp.com [192.168.125.83]) (authenticated bits=0) by pollux.dfwlp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4NC0TrA052082 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 07:00:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from freebsd@dfwlp.com) From: Jonathan Horne To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 07:00:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <6.2.3.4.2.20070522214559.01e29df8@mail.bellsouth.net> <4653BA6D.3010009@freebsd.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20070523065540.01db1048@mailsvr.xxiii.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070523065540.01db1048@mailsvr.xxiii.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705230700.28794.freebsd@dfwlp.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.6 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on pollux.dfwlp.com Subject: Re: what's up with portsnap? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:00:31 -0000 On Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:03:18 r17fbsd@xxiii.com wrote: > At 11:52 PM 5/22/2007, you wrote: > >r17fbsd@xxiii.com wrote: > > > # portsnap fetch > > > Latest snapshot on server is older than what we already have! > > > >That's really strange. And it doesn't happen for me. > >Is it possible that you have a misbehaving proxy which is caching > >a month-old snapshot? Colin Percival > > Oh, crap. The god of portsnap and things FBSD has spoken and said > I'm a dipshit. And of course he's right ;) > > Yeah, it goes through squid.... cause IIRC you suggested it. It > speeds up multi-machine updates a bunch. But when they all started > doing the same thing, I figured it was something on the > servers. I've been snapping for over a year, and it's always worked > great through squid. Don't know what changed, but I gave squid a > re-init, and portsnap is fetching 6200 patches. I should probably > just blow out ports and start from scratch at this point. > > Thanks, Colin! > > -RW > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" btw RW, you might take a look at using csup for maintaining your ports instead of portsnap. when you clear your ports directory and start over, you will notice that portsnap takes quite a while to even start unpacking the snapshot (at least it does on my computer). however, with csup doing it, the population of the ports directory start almost immediately. to me it just feels like it gets done a lot quicker. if you are familiar with csup, you might have already seen the ports-supfile in /usr/share/examples/cvsup/. give it a try and see what you think, you might be pleasantly surprised! -- Jonathan Horne http://dfwlpiki.dfwlp.org freebsd@dfwlp.com