Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 05:03:05 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050808100305.GA35719@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <42F71D75.4060008@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <42F71D75.4060008@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:53:09AM +0100 I heard the voice of Nik Clayton, and lo! it spake thus: > > Working on the assumption that applications that affect the whole > ports tree start "ports" and applications that affect single ports > start "port", "portsnap" left me wondering whether this "snaps" a > single port somehow, or "naps" (whatever that would be) the whole > ports tree. Well, see, before you build anything, you should always make sure your tree is well-rested... -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050808100305.GA35719>