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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CD3C89.4030608>