Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:33:36 -0500 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: "Colin Percival" <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <op.su4hqaef9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> In-Reply-To: <42F59AA8.2030605@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <op.su4gzdps9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <42F59AA8.2030605@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:22:48 -0500, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: > Jeremy Messenger wrote: >> Will portsnap improvement on to not delete any unoffical ports? I have >> about 15 unoffical ports here in local machine and they are living in >> /usr/ports for other tools' sake like portupgrade/pkgdb. I have never >> use it, but I read in the bottom of >> http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ . > > Portsnap will not remove any ports which it doesn't know about. Portsnap > will only remove local modifications when they are in a port or > infrastructure > file (e.g., Mk/*) which portsnap is updating to a newer version. Good, thanks! Cheers, Mezz > Colin Percival -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.su4hqaef9aq2h7>