Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:14:54 -0800 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem) Message-ID: <200511091114.55355.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> References: <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 11:13, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote: > > If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do > > it. > > Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10 > times the changes? > > Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap. Is there any reason in the > world why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of > ports from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap > today? One thing I noticed about portsnap that is either a "feature" or not is it doesn't catch changes you make in the tree. For example if you modify a port's Makefile and that port isn't part of the update it won't change, with cvsup it will. For setting up a new, clean port tree portsnap is wonderful, much faster than cvsup and probably way easier on the servers as well. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511091114.55355.ringworm01>