Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:20:00 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap Message-ID: <20121119192000.0e2abfab@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <loom.20121119T170555-865@post.gmane.org> References: <loom.20121119T160541-423@post.gmane.org> <20121119155141.46107723@gumby.homeunix.com> <loom.20121119T170555-865@post.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:10:48 +0000 (UTC) jb wrote: > > You gave portsnap two commands - one succeeded and the other failed. > > > > "fetch" downloads and applies patches to the compressed > > snapshot. "update" uses the compressed snapshot to update a > > pre-existing ports tree created by an "extract" > > ... > > OK. > But this looks like a flaky entry validation - it should be rejected > up front as invalid entry, even if it applied to the second part - > "update". Because the effect of processing the entire entry "fetch" > plus "update" is lost anyway. Not isn't, you've brought the snapshot up to date.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121119192000.0e2abfab>