From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 03:48:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B9D16A421 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 03:48:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmc20@xxiii.com) Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net (imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.59.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23C643D58 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 03:48:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wmc20@xxiii.com) Received: from ibm70aec.bellsouth.net ([68.209.177.221]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060514034838.XVAL9063.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm70aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 23:48:38 -0400 Received: from wcox.bellsouth.net ([68.209.177.221]) by ibm70aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060514034835.WQTI4378.ibm70aec.bellsouth.net@wcox.bellsouth.net>; Sat, 13 May 2006 23:48:35 -0400 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060513234344.02ebfd00@mailsvr.xxiii.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 23:48:47 -0400 To: "Tom Moore" , From: wc_fbsd@xxiii.com In-Reply-To: <000301c676b3$9f398b90$6603a8c0@zeus> References: <000301c676b3$9f398b90$6603a8c0@zeus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: Cvsup verses Portsnap 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: Sun, 14 May 2006 03:48:57 -0000 At 01:35 PM 5/13/2006, Tom Moore wrote: >Which program is best for retrieving and keeping the ports tree up >to date? What are some pros and cons of each approach? Is one method >better than the other? I just discovered portsnap a couple months ago after loading a couple new machines with 6.0. It is AWESOME (thanks, Colin! (the guy that developed it)). Do not even screw with cvsup for your ports. portsnap is faster, easier, and (I'm told) even lower bandwith and server overhead. About the only downside, is it has a directory in /var/db that was about 50MB with a bunch of little files last I looked, and I suspect it grows with time. But what's disk space these days? -Wayne