Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:24:07 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem) Message-ID: <4373AC67.4010403@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420511100647h5fbc1946n88f3fac1e449e758@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> <43725078.6000303@freebsd.org> <cb5206420511100647h5fbc1946n88f3fac1e449e758@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew P. wrote: > There are a couple more points against portsnap: > - it lags behind by a few hours. This is true (well, 1-2 hours). However, the reason for this is that portsnap builds ports INDEX files, and since portsnap is usually more up-to-date than the INDEX files fetched by "make fetchindex", the lag time is probably less of a problem than one might imagine at first. That said, the build times should be improving somewhat as I move portsnap builds to some new hardware in the near future. > - setting up a mirror is still undocumented I'm working on it; but for most users, a caching HTTP proxy will be far better than an actual portsnap mirror. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4373AC67.4010403>