Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:50:49 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portsnap is now in the base system Message-ID: <43CD3C89.4030608@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <20060117133604.usxeni3g0s4o8k80@netchild.homeip.net> 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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > >>> 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. This i did not consider, the ability to use plain http would be beneficial for me, as i have some clients that are heavily firewalled, and using cvsup is not possible. So to also be able to fetch current sources would be nice too!home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CD3C89.4030608>