Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:53:09 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F71D75.4060008@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote:
> But for formality: Does anyone have an objection to having the base system
> enlarged by about 40kB by adding a program for updating the ports tree which
> is faster, uses less bandwidth, is more secure, and is easier to use than cvsup,
> while also having the side benefit of distributing pre-built INDEX files?
Since you ask, only to the name. Running "ports<TAB>" on my system shows:
ports_glob
portsclean
portsdb
"port<TAB>" shows those plus:
portaudit
portcvsweb
portinstall
portmap :-)
portupgrade
portversion
Working on the assumption that applications that affect the whole ports
tree start "ports" and applications that affect single ports start
"port", "portsnap" left me wondering whether this "snaps" a single port
somehow, or "naps" (whatever that would be) the whole ports tree.
It may be too late in the day, but I'd far prefer this to be pulled in
with a more descriptive name:
portssync
portsupdate
portsfresh or portsfreshen
perhaps?
N
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F71D75.4060008>