From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 27 13:59:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19AF106566C for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:59:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A99B8FC22 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MruHx-00060a-RK for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:59:45 +0200 Received: from pool-70-21-11-122.res.east.verizon.net ([70.21.11.122]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:59:45 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-70-21-11-122.res.east.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:59:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:00:08 -0400 Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <20090926140646.12921239@scorpio.seibercom.net> <4ABE6B5A.7030305@fechner.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-70-21-11-122.res.east.verizon.net Sender: news Subject: Re: Warning: PHP Update from 5.2.10 to 5.2.11 and FastCGI X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: nightrecon@hotmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:59:50 -0000 Matthias Fechner wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael Powell schrieb: >> patch I got. I use cvsup11 because it closest to me (in the Verizon >> datacenter in Ashland, Va.) but I have had that server go stale before. >> Might try csupping ports again from something a little higher up in the >> hierarchy. > > why not using portsnap? > > Bye > Matthias First rule of maintenance: "If it ain't broke don't fix it". I tend to stick with what has worked well in the past, even though at some point the move towards more current approaches does indeed need to happen. I checked and this had nothing to do with cvsup11 being stale. Same code as mirrored elsewhere. Did find problem, see other reply. -Mike