Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:04:33 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating Message-ID: <417FD521.3020204@wadham.ox.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> writes: >>CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. > > if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right. Let me rephrase. CVSup is slower than necessary when fetching only a small number of updates, especially if you have a slow uplink. > I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no > need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it. CVSup is a great piece of software. However, it's a piece of software which was designed in a rather different setting than the current problem of keeping an up-to-date ports tree. Where CVSup does a very wide range of things adequately, portsnap is designed to do one specific task very well. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417FD521.3020204>