Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:14:58 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: K??vesd??n G??bor <gabor.kovesdan@t-hosting.hu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: Download the whole ports tree Message-ID: <20051217181458.GA60736@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <43A444D0.60409@t-hosting.hu> References: <20051216120050.4C25816A420@hub.freebsd.org> <20051217071239.GA773@ns.museum.rain.com> <20051217075431.GA31743@xor.obsecurity.org> <200512171659.58916.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <43A444D0.60409@t-hosting.hu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:03:12PM +0100, K??vesd??n G??bor wrote: > RW wrote: > > >On Saturday 17 December 2005 07:54, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > >>Well, if you really think you want this, then just: > >> > >>cd /usr/ports > >>make fetch > >> > >> > > > >Just idle curiosity, but does anyone have a feeling for how much that > >would download? > > > > > This would not fetch all of the distfiles, because there are broken > ports that are unfetchable and the fetching would stop when reaching the > first such port. Sorry, you're right - you want 'make -k fetch BATCH=yes' (the variable is to avoid any interaction from things like config dialogs). You might be able to get away with using -j for concurrent fetches too, although there's a possibility of corrupting a distfile if two ports that share the same distfile fetch it at once. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDpFWiWry0BWjoQKURAsetAJwK4AfeNrxoZT8aeNPb3AIjWpmrkQCgiDhL My5a9Kx0xx96EEIUyncNrZI= =0qRK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217181458.GA60736>