Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:18:05 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Ed Flecko <edflecko@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Correct syntax of "supfile" to keep ports upgraded? Message-ID: <AANLkTimpRVbHMiCSHhoZYkfOiTS=iBysmhsLu-FKrTVx@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=rrpZ%2BtUNUrvTvTTCbm_mOrZwmXnCK-pL4fZa@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=Mi1-TJbzF7qcLcq3Wnn3jf4NLZfgbrbmVpURN@mail.gmail.com> <20100730175404.GA32794@slackbox.erewhon.net> <AANLkTin=rrpZ%2BtUNUrvTvTTCbm_mOrZwmXnCK-pL4fZa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Ed Flecko <edflecko@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. This line is correct > csup is most useful if you are tracking > -stable or -current, > This line is an opinion, one I disagree with. > while portsnap is best for production systems where you use binary updates. > > This is also an opinion, but I agree with it. Just use portsnap unless you're used to doing the old way. First time run: portsnap fetch extract anytime you want to update thereafter: portsnap fetch update -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimpRVbHMiCSHhoZYkfOiTS=iBysmhsLu-FKrTVx>