Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 11:48:06 +0100 From: Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@kode5.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: csup vs portsnap was: fresh install of kde4 fails -> japanese/kiten Message-ID: <20120901104806.GA54669@kontrol.kode5.net> In-Reply-To: <20120901004954.450b4301@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <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> <20120901004954.450b4301@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ] > 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. Agreed. After the first run of `portsnap fetch extract`, subsequent fetch and update using portsnap is certainly faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120901104806.GA54669>