Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 14:04:17 -0500 From: LuMiWa <lumiwa@dismail.de> To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portsnap Message-ID: <20201226140417.04225f3e@dismail.de> In-Reply-To: <6d0d128b-9a75-34f4-830c-d8be05ded9cb@freebsd.org> References: <20201226124150.7c494410@dismail.de> <6d0d128b-9a75-34f4-830c-d8be05ded9cb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 19:51:37 +0100 Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> wrote: > Am 26.12.20 um 18:41 schrieb LuMiWa via freebsd-ports: > > Hi! > >=20 > > Today I red again an email: > >=20 > > Subject: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap > > From: Steve Wills <swills () FreeBSD ! org> > > Date: 2020-08-04 18:43:20 > >=20 > > And as portsnap user I have a question: Do they planning > > deprecation of portmaster too? >=20 > No, I'm actively working on portmaster and have rewritten it from > scratch for better performance (and additional features, e.g. building > in a clean chroot jail, similar to synth or poudriere). >=20 > I have been using that version for more than one year, but the > functionality is not complete, yet. >=20 > On a test system with > 2200 installed ports it takes less than 10 > seconds to identify the ~600 out-of-date ports (that I keep in this > state for testing of the upgrade strategy function), which is more > than 30 times faster than the same operation with the "official" > portmaster. >=20 > Until completion of that version, I'll continue to maintain and > update the current portmaster port ... >=20 > Regards, STefan >=20 ...and I will continue to use portmaster. But I don't understand why we should no keep portsnap. --=20 =E2=80=9CWaiter! A cup of coffee without cream, please!=20 I=E2=80=99m sorry, sir, we have no cream, only milk, so can it be a coffee without milk?=E2=80=9D=20 =E2=80=95 Ernst Lubitsch=E2=80=99s Ninotchka
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201226140417.04225f3e>