Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:22:48 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F59AA8.2030605@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <op.su4gzdps9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <op.su4gzdps9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F59AA8.2030605>