Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 01:35:34 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap update won't update original /usr/ports Message-ID: <20120524013534.7b5038cf@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <1800315639.3547775.1337736644930.JavaMail.root@md03.insight.synacor.com> References: <4FBC1B06.6060102@dreamchaser.org> <1800315639.3547775.1337736644930.JavaMail.root@md03.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Thomas Mueller wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Aitken <freebsd@dreamchaser.org> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Sent: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:02:30 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: portsnap update won't update original /usr/ports > > According to the handbook, one can do > portsnap fetch > portsnap update > and the update will work with a previously created ports tree; > I presume this includes one created during system install. It says: "If you are running Portsnap for the first time, extract the snapshot into /usr/ports: # portsnap extract If you already have a populated /usr/ports and you are just updating, run the following command instead..." If you have the tree from the disk then that means you are running portsnap for the first time, the second sentence refers to a /usr/ports populated by a portsnap extract. > ---- My response: ---- > > Now I wonder if it's feasible to switch between "portsnap fetch > update" and csup <ports-supfile>, or if it's strictly one or the > other. You'll probably get away with it most of the time, but it's not safe to mix them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120524013534.7b5038cf>