Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:12:36 -0700 From: Ed Flecko <edflecko@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Correct syntax of "supfile" to keep ports upgraded? Message-ID: <AANLkTin=rrpZ%2BtUNUrvTvTTCbm_mOrZwmXnCK-pL4fZa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100730175404.GA32794@slackbox.erewhon.net> References: <AANLkTi=Mi1-TJbzF7qcLcq3Wnn3jf4NLZfgbrbmVpURN@mail.gmail.com> <20100730175404.GA32794@slackbox.erewhon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you Roland; I didn't know portsnap is part of the base install. :-) >From a book that I have (Absolute FreeBSD - 2nd Edition), it says" PORTSNAP VS. CSUP Use either portsnap(8) or csup(1) to update the Ports Collection, but not both. The two tools are incompatible. csup is most useful if you are tracking -stable or -current, while portsnap is best for production systems where you use binary updates. You can make either portsnap(8) or csup(1) work in either situation, but you must pick one and stick with it!" Does this apply to me, since I'm following the "errata" branch (*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8_0) and up update, I use the following command: csup -4 /etc/stable-supfile Maybe I should use cvsup (cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/stable-supfile) instead so I can use portsnap??? What do you think? Ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin=rrpZ%2BtUNUrvTvTTCbm_mOrZwmXnCK-pL4fZa>