Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:43:49 -0500 From: Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> To: Joe Altman <freebsd@chthonixia.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is csup broken? Message-ID: <50E455B5.1050708@a1poweruser.com> In-Reply-To: <20130102153106.GA86408@whisperer.chthonixia.net> References: <50E44EC9.6070301@a1poweruser.com> <20130102162025.d7ef8fd5.freebsd@edvax.de> <20130102153106.GA86408@whisperer.chthonixia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Altman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 04:20:25PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: >> Have you tried checking out via SVN which now is the desired >> default method (even though it's not integrated in the base >> install and the "make" scripting mechanism)? > > ISTM that SVN is not the default method for users; but portsnap is the > preferred method for users. > > Developers, OTOH, may find SVN useful. > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-portsnap.html > > I have no idea if the OP is a user or a developer; but I do know that at > least a cursory reading of the Handbook is a good idea, since the OP > question seems to be directly addressed in the Handbook. > > Regards, > > Joe As the OP I see no need to pollute my system with a complete ports tree when I only have to compile php5 to enable the apache module. Thats over kill in my book. Sure the handbook says to use portsnap but that still loads the complete ports tree. crazy. My ports tree only has the ports I have to recompile to change defaults used in package. This approach saves disk and backup times.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E455B5.1050708>