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>