From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 28 15:02:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BFF6CA for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:02:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mueller23@insightbb.com) Received: from mail.insightbb.com (smtp3.insight.synacor.com [208.47.185.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DB917F for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:02:23 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=KKHY/S5o c=1 sm=0 a=Dm9TOXL4taQ+Gy1KovpL+A==:17 a=WrV8zJ25IEQA:10 a=DvSzqBOGy98A:10 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=Y_vyGYvwhgUA:10 a=mK_AVkanAAAA:8 a=rrLlPpS3i0YT51blqpUA:9 a=9xyTavCNlvEA:10 a=Dm9TOXL4taQ+Gy1KovpL+A==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com header.from=mueller6724@bellsouth.net; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com smtp.mail=mueller23@insightbb.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (smtp01.insight.synacor.com: transitional domain insightbb.com does not designate 74.130.198.7 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.130.198.7] ([74.130.198.7:32984] helo=localhost) by mail.insightbb.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTP id F0/33-27613-8F296015; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:02:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:02:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cronjob Cvsup -> What? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:02:24 -0000 On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:22:02 -0500 Thomas Mueller wrote: > I've always used "portsnap fetch update" after the initial "portsnap > fetch" and "portsnap extract". What would be the adverse side effect > of using svn instead? RW responded: > In general it's best to avoid mixing update tools unless you fully > understand all the corner cases and know it's safe. > The most significant problem is they can lose track of what files > need to be deleted, which can lead to obsolete patch files being left > in the tree. One of the functions of "portsnap extract" is to eliminate > extra files in port directories to avoid this problem. You miss my point. The intent was not to mix portsnap and svn but to use svn in a separate location, /usr/ports as opposed to the present /BETA1/usr/ports, with the intent to switch to svn. Of course, I realize I'd have to update at least three etc/make.conf files: hard drive installation, USB stick amd64 and USB stick i386. Tom