Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:53:47 +0200
From:      Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.oberon.net>
To:        Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap
Message-ID:  <20050807125347.GA43837@voodoo.oberon.net>
In-Reply-To: <42F59AA8.2030605@freebsd.org>
References:  <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <op.su4gzdps9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <42F59AA8.2030605@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 10:22:48PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
> Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > Will portsnap improvement on to not delete any unoffical ports? I have 
> > about 15 unoffical ports here in local machine and they are living in 
> > /usr/ports for other tools' sake like portupgrade/pkgdb. I have never
> > use  it, but I read in the bottom of http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ .
> 
> Portsnap will not remove any ports which it doesn't know about.  Portsnap
> will only remove local modifications when they are in a port or infrastructure
> file (e.g., Mk/*) which portsnap is updating to a newer version.

Is portsnap also immune to Makefile.inc[local] and doesn't delete
them during update ?

-Kirill



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807125347.GA43837>