Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 03:22:07 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing distfiles? Message-ID: <20090528032207.25de408a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <18973.59970.379090.475951@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <20090527224351.1e94029b@bobcat.edu> <20090527205610.GA22384@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20090528021346.54c91917@gumby.homeunix.com> <18973.59970.379090.475951@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 May 2009 21:34:58 -0400 Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote: > > RW writes: > > > Personally I much prefer the less aggressive mode (distclean -D) > > which deletes files unreferenced by the ports tree, rather than > > unreferenced by installed ports. > > I use "-DD". With nearly 1000 ports on one machine, it's > important to realize many ports go months (and some years) between > updates and pain of downloading a fresh copy is minimal given a half > decent net connection. That's what I used to think until I deleted some java distfiles, and had to go though the rigmarole of getting all the various files manually. There's also the possibility that a distfile gets rerolled and local copy is the only one that matches the port checksums. Disk space is cheap, the extra files don't add up to much in practice. The real advantage of cleaning comes from not have ten copies of kdebase and the like. Deleting only the obsolete files also has the advantage of being entirely safe - so I do it from a periodic script.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090528032207.25de408a>