Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:49:54 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: csup vs portsnap was: fresh install of kde4 fails -> japanese/kiten Message-ID: <20120901004954.450b4301@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <503E50F2.9000809@paz.bz> References: <503BEB67.3040106@paz.bz> <CAJp7RHarRcvS4vcymHPZ54JYAbxB5AgHae=mMmgjNoA0kv_Dig@mail.gmail.com> <503BFA2D.1080606@paz.bz> <CAJp7RHarZPB-YHsXeO4oGMLaraKGD_mLOU2ovsQBh8Sh4GBgMw@mail.gmail.com> <503C0BDC.6020106@paz.bz> <CAJp7RHazu9gP6GYg3kJ4xWtsF11vbevGhffBVCRA7B0AB68U-w@mail.gmail.com> <503D8ACA.1040907@paz.bz> <CAJp7RHavJfGjSrXFn9Az5kcbXDULUypP%2BqrhVs3nzEgjx9kRSg@mail.gmail.com> <503E2E9D.2010005@paz.bz> <CAJp7RHZ5jRKrH0ZoJ2BWzrhEhhbA%2BO441M43cvEA1e1ZObsBjA@mail.gmail.com> <503E50F2.9000809@paz.bz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700 Jim Pazarena wrote: > Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup? > I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup. In normal use portsnap should be much faster than csup. The initial "portsnap extract" is much slower than a normal "update", and fetching the first compressed snapshot or updating a really ancient one is slower than a normal "fetch" - beyond that portsnap is very fast.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120901004954.450b4301>