Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:43:24 -0500
From:      Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>
To:        Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>
Cc:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Portsnap is now in the base system
Message-ID:  <43CD3ACC.2060201@rogers.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.s3iwjsfe9aq2h7@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> <20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80@netchild.homeip.net> <op.s3iwjsfe9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:36:04 -0600, Alexander Leidinger 
> <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

No, thats not what i meant.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CD3ACC.2060201>