Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:36:04 -0400 (EDT) From: whizkid@valuedj.com To: "Matthew Seaman" <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: whizkid@valuedj.com Subject: Re: Noob FreeBSD 5.1 install question Message-ID: <65118.208.253.246.93.1066754164.squirrel@www.valuedj.com> In-Reply-To: <20031021084252.GC92274@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <10690.208.253.246.93.1066684927.squirrel@www.valuedj.com> <20031021084252.GC92274@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, there's no law that says you *have* to use the ports system, but > it's pretty strange not to take advantage of something so good... > There are pre-compiled packages available, but these generally don't > track the latest upstream updates to the ported software very > efficiently. The ports tree does: updates to popular packages like > apache generally go into the ports tree within a day or so of them > being published. > > Rather than installing the ports and system sources by downloading > tarballs from the FTP sites, there are arguments in favour of > installing by running cvsup(1) to populate an empty directory. Sorry, what i was saying is that instead of installing the PORTS from the cd I was downloading the latest and greatest ports Tarball from the www.freebsd.org/ports site. Not the fact that I don't use them.. But thank you for the valuable info. I will put it in my book so I can remember to use it tonight.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?65118.208.253.246.93.1066754164.squirrel>