Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:02:16 -0500 From: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller6724@bellsouth.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cronjob Cvsup -> What? Message-ID: <F0.33.27613.8F296015@smtp01.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:22:02 -0500 Thomas Mueller wrote: > I've always used "portsnap fetch update" after the initial "portsnap > fetch" and "portsnap extract". What would be the adverse side effect > of using svn instead? RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> responded: > In general it's best to avoid mixing update tools unless you fully > understand all the corner cases and know it's safe. > The most significant problem is they can lose track of what files > need to be deleted, which can lead to obsolete patch files being left > in the tree. One of the functions of "portsnap extract" is to eliminate > extra files in port directories to avoid this problem. You miss my point. The intent was not to mix portsnap and svn but to use svn in a separate location, /usr/ports as opposed to the present /BETA1/usr/ports, with the intent to switch to svn. Of course, I realize I'd have to update at least three etc/make.conf files: hard drive installation, USB stick amd64 and USB stick i386. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F0.33.27613.8F296015>