Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:56:50 -0500 From: Xn Nooby <xnooby@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does portsdb -Uu run so long? Message-ID: <bdf25fde0602041456t4efdc942gc4a9d3b1fbb7454@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a0602040814q2931457dg206664b6baa46fac@mail.gmail.com> References: <bdf25fde0602010241i30ed79c9x2818c3fa35abf731@mail.gmail.com> <ef10de9a0602032110g5ff97760tb6ead7a638c1ed86@mail.gmail.com> <bdf25fde0602032318u7e01d789u58fe877c25e574cd@mail.gmail.com> <ef10de9a0602040814q2931457dg206664b6baa46fac@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
By the looks of it when you cvsup you get everything (src-all, > ports-all, etc) all at once. I think it might be better if you split > that into two sup-files where you would have one for the system, > src-all, and the other one for ports. This way you don't have to > rebuild the system every time you update your ports, this also works > the other way around. Once a branch is cut and declared -STABLE the > libraries used to make your programs work are rarely changed, If it > does change they will tell you in /usr/src/UPDATING. For the sake of > troubleshooting it helps if you don't change everything all at once. I thought that maybe by changing everything at once, I would avoid mismatched libraries. Someone should write a book on all this stuff, and explain it thoroughly, with various case examples. When I use the old slow way, I never get an error - when I use portsnap, I do. This makes me inclined to never use portsnap, regardless of how fast it is.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bdf25fde0602041456t4efdc942gc4a9d3b1fbb7454>