Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:36:04 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portsnap is now in the base system Message-ID: <20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <op.s3hmigpj9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <42F871B4.6000703@freebsd.org> <200601161324.57292.nike_d@cytexbg.com> <43CB8E90.8090902@suutari.iki.fi> <20060116175526.GA25023@lizzy.catnook.local> <43CBEEF4.1000007@rogers.com> <op.s3hmigpj9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: >>>> Is there an utility (cvsup-replacement) like this for base system >>>> sources ? >>>> >>> >>> See csup: http://mu.org/~mux/csup.html. But it's not ready yet. csup is a rewrite of cvsup in C. So it's not a replacement like portsnap is, it's just a different implementation of the same procedure. >> Why would one want to replace cvsup? It works great! > > You won't be asking that kind of question if you read there in the > second paragraph. ;-) I use both. For *me* the main reason to use portsnap was, that it is able to fetch updates if the only way to get something from the outside is http (e.g. via a caching proxy). This doesn't matter at home (where I use both: portsnap to update where I don't need to modify the ports collection, and cvsup+cvs for ports collection where I make changes). None of those reasons where outlined in the (removed) paragraph. So I think the question is valid. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137 God is a polytheist.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80>