Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:34:25 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: cperciva@FreeBSD.org Cc: dougb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807.153425.21897310.hrs@allbsd.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
----Security_Multipart(Sun_Aug__7_15_34_25_2005_372)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote in <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org>: cp> But for formality: Does anyone have an objection to having the base system cp> enlarged by about 40kB by adding a program for updating the ports tree which cp> is faster, uses less bandwidth, is more secure, and is easier to use than cvsup, cp> while also having the side benefit of distributing pre-built INDEX files? Is the server-side part of portsnap available now? I am interested in mirroring since portsnap.daemonology.net is too far from my box in Japan. -- | Hiroki SATO ----Security_Multipart(Sun_Aug__7_15_34_25_2005_372)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBC9atyTyzT2CeTzy0RAqgHAJ9QGHCNWBh1cGgM2s5XtGSepveg+gCgtY47 R1HZCR0sk0Ntg5qpshYbAOc= =Fd2C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Sun_Aug__7_15_34_25_2005_372)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807.153425.21897310.hrs>