Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 05:23:03 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807192303.GA9970@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20050807182451.GB61057@frontfree.net> References: <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> <20050807.231125.26489231.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> <20050807182451.GB61057@frontfree.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2005-Aug-08 02:24:51 +0800, Xin LI wrote: >I must say that HTTP proxy-able is the 1st reason why I like portsnap. >There are so many people asking "Hey, how can I break the firewall that >blocks cvsup connection?" Where I can only say "The only solution at >this time would be to negotiate with the local network administrator" >in the pre-postsnap age. Or use CTM. AFAIK, the ports tree is available via CTM. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807192303.GA9970>