Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:31:18 +0200 From: Marian Hettwer <Mh@kernel32.de> To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating Message-ID: <417F8706.8060009@kernel32.de> In-Reply-To: <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> writes: > >>CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. > > > if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right. > > I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no > need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it. > ACK. I don't believe cvsup is slow. Well, at least it's not slower than Gentoo's emerge (rsync based AFAIK) or OpenBSD's way of just using anonCVS via ssh. However, cvsup _is_ insecure and I don't like that it's based on modula3. I really have no program which uses m3 apart from CVSUP. So, well, perhaps portsnap is a nice replacement. Who knows ? :) (ah, jeah, Colin knows ;-D ) best regards, Marian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417F8706.8060009>