Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:49:20 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions about port revision numbers, portsnap, csup Message-ID: <20100419224920.1c344c13@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4BCC9B15.4050803@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4BCC8E8C.80406@netmusician.org> <4BCC9B15.4050803@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:04:05 +0100 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > You could change to using csup rather than portsnap, but be aware that > this pretty much means scrubbing all of your portsnap state. Indeed, > for best results with csup, starting with an empty /usr/ports might be > an idea -- I don't think that will be necessary, but I can't be > certain. If you switch to csup, switching back to portsnap will > definitely require you to re-download the ports tree and replace > everything you had installed via csup. As I understand it portsnap's state is split between /var and the ports directory itself. The former contains the snapshot and its metadata, and the latter contains the metadata for that specific copy of the tree. Using csup shouldn't affect the stuff under /var, but it invalidates the metadata in the ports directory. If you return to portsnap after using csup you should only need to do a new "extract" which overwrite the individual files and each "origin-directory", and generates the local portsnap metadata. If you are paranoid (or want to clean-up extra cruft) delete the ports directory first. Going the other way the tree should really be deleted and redownloaded to ensure that csup keeps track of all the patch files. That's more of a long-term issue though.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100419224920.1c344c13>