Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:14:29 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Walter Hurry <walterhurry@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using /etc/portsnap.conf Message-ID: <20130103071429.07bbcb6e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <kc1u0e$mpk$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <50E46E0D.5030202@a1poweruser.com> <kc1u0e$mpk$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:24:14 +0000 (UTC), Walter Hurry wrote: > By the way, in answer to your question in another thread, you don't have > to extract the whole tree if you don't want to. Use 'portsnap fetch' the > first time around, and then portsnap extract the port you want. See 'man > portsnap', and remember to cater for the dependencies. This is correct and works in many many situations. However, there has been a saying which states that "only a complete ports tree is guaranteed to work properly"; I think this basically refers to the availability of dependencies and turtles all the way down, plus the top level files (such as /usr/ports/Makefile) and the Mk/ and Tools/ subtrees. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130103071429.07bbcb6e.freebsd>