Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:05:51 -0800 From: Jay Chandler <lists@sequestered.net> To: "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portsnap -- update claims "up to date" but it's not. Message-ID: <47720B5F.8090407@sequestered.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712260139070.45340@prime.gushi.org> References: <20071225234859.F75015@prime.gushi.org> <4771E0A0.60008@sequestered.net> <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712260139070.45340@prime.gushi.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: > On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Jay Chandler wrote: > >> Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: >>> Maybe I'm just doing this completely wrong: >>> >>> prime# portsnap update >>> Ports tree is already up to date. >>> prime# portsnap fetch >>> Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 4 mirrors found. >>> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap3.FreeBSD.org... done. >>> Fetching snapshot metadata... done. >>> Updating from Mon Nov 12 18:16:16 EST 2007 to Tue Dec 25 21:36:54 >>> EST 2007. >>> Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. >>> Applying metadata patches... done. >>> Fetching 4 metadata files... >>> [and so on] >>> >>> Am I using this thing wrong? >>> >>> -Dan >> >> Yup. 'portsnap fetch update' is the command I use-- the reverse >> order that you're using 'em in. > > Shouldn't I just need one of the two? > > -Dan Nope. fetch fetches the latest snapshot; update unpacks it. extract does the ENTIRE snapshot again, but that's generally not needed after the first time. -- Jay Chandler / KB1JWQ Living Legend / Systems Exorcist Today's Excuse: Vendor no longer supports the product
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47720B5F.8090407>