Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:30:58 -0400 From: "Andy Greenwood" <greenwood.andy@gmail.com> To: "Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg" <listsub@401.cx> Cc: Lane <lane@joeandlane.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Rik Davis <rik_davis2004@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ports collection issue Message-ID: <3ee9ca710610270630k3ffed709u266d631878b9988b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4542094E.8050809@401.cx> References: <20061027000754.86183.qmail@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <200610262236.46586.lane@joeandlane.com> <4541F8AC.1030502@401.cx> <3ee9ca710610270541m153e68d2i427a106afabcc57e@mail.gmail.com> <4542094E.8050809@401.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/27/06, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg <listsub@401.cx> wrote: > Andy Greenwood wrote: > > Is it possible to use csup with my existing cvsup files? I skimmed the > > man page and it looks very similar. Is there any advantage to using > > cvsup over csup? > > I use the same files for csup as I used for cvsup. You should not > have to change anything except removing the 'v' after the 'c' in > 'cvsup' on the command-line. :) > > Csup is basically cvsup rewritten in C instead of Modula-3. While > cvsup is an excellent program that certainly makes exactly what it > was designed to do, it unfortunately has some dependencies that are > not common on most installations. > I do not know of any advantages that cvsup might have over csup, > more then the fact that it is a thoroughly tested program that has > performed well for several years, while csup is a relatively new > program. AFAIK there has not been any reports of problem with csup > though, so I would say its safe to use. > Thanks for the info! Anything I can do to reduce dependancies on my underpowered frankenstein box is a good thing! > -- > R > > -- I'm nerdy in the extreme and whiter than sour cream
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ee9ca710610270630k3ffed709u266d631878b9988b>