Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 02:11:23 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> Cc: Michael Lednev <liettneff@bk.ru>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Rudy <crapsh@monkeybrains.net> Subject: Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1080107003852.17643A-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20080106112937.6C63116A4CD@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:31:29 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> wrote: > Rudy wrote: > > Michael Lednev wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> Is there any way to compact /var/db/portsnap other than deleting > >> it and doing postsnap fetch? Not really. /var/db/portsnap/files contains one file for each port, gzipped. Mine's about 70MB with indices, containing a ports tree of some 450MB. I guess it depends whether that much space is more precious to you than the time and bandwidth to fetch and then extract the whole tree afresh? > > I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap > > command in my 10 years of FreeBSD use. I use cvsup! I didn't like it much until I'd tried it, either :) c[v]sup works fine too of course, so trimming some discussion of that .. [..] > > If you don't have cvsup installed, run this command: # pkg_add -r > > cvsup-without-gui > > It is better to use all ports or all packages so either do: Why do you say that? Do you know of unresolved issues regarding the interactions of port versus package installations? Any references? > cd /usr/ports/net/cvsup-without-gui > make install clean > > or after doing the above do a pkg_delete -a (assuming that your > working with a clean machine [no ports/packages instaleld except cvsup] Why wouldn't pkg_delete -a remove your just-installed cvsup-without-gui? > > For more info on the supfile, look at this file on your FreeBSD > > machine: /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile > > > > Preferring cvsup to portsnap is kinda like preferring vim over > > emacs... It's a holy war and the vi/cvsup side uses less disk > > space. > > Actually it is not like that at all.. cvsup/csup is the officially > preferred method and any other method is a short cut of some kind... Please provide a reference URL to 'official' support of this claim? > many of them have very subtle issues that the typical end-user should > not notice but should be aware of... Issues such as? And what other alternatives to c*sup and portsnap exist for ports tree management? ooroo, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1080107003852.17643A-100000>