From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 03:23:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D9D16A417 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:23:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oceanare@pacific.net.sg) Received: from smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg (smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg [203.120.90.31]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99E4613C458 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:23:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oceanare@pacific.net.sg) Received: (qmail 24794 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2007 03:23:24 -0000 Received: from adsl2.dyn234.pacific.net.sg (HELO P2120.somewherefaraway.com) (oceanare@210.24.234.2) by smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg with ESMTPA; 19 Dec 2007 03:23:23 -0000 Message-ID: <47688E99.4050802@pacific.net.sg> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:23:05 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070826) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: rough method of cleaning the ports tree X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:23:27 -0000 Hi, after noticing how large my ports tree grows while compiling, I thought of simply deleting it and do a CVSup to get a new one after the compilation is finished. This should be much faster and also should do some kind o defragmentation. I simply cannot believe that the huge ports tree will still be very well organised after some months. What does the list think of this method? Erich