From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 12:47:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F33E16A41F for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:47:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from centrmmtao06.cox.net (centrmmtao06.cox.net [70.168.83.78]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C70043D67 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:47:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.140]) by centrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060117124740.QPUF4002.centrmmtao06.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:47:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:48:54 -0600 To: "Alexander Leidinger" 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> <20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80@netchild.homeip.net> From: "Jeremy Messenger" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80@netchild.homeip.net> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.51 (Linux, build 1462) Cc: Mike Jakubik , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portsnap is now in the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:47:43 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:36:04 -0600, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Jeremy Messenger 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. I think, he means why would one want Csup to replace CVSup instead Portsnap replace CVSup. The second paragraph is a valid answer for Csup to replace CVSup, but not Portsnap. Cheers, Mezz > Bye, > Alexander. -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org