Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:53:23 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <20050807.153425.21897310.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F5BC19.5040602@freebsd.org> <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hiroki Sato wrote: > I meant "too far" as "low bandwidth and intermediate nodes down sometimes". Portsnap runs over HTTP, and respects the HTTP_PROXY environment variable. If I understand your concern, using a local HTTP proxy would be the best option, since it would use far less bandwidth than actually mirroring everything. > So, I would like the server-side bits to be imported if portsnap will > be in the base system. By "server-side", do you mean a) The code which builds the portsnap files, b) The code which mirrors them, or c) The web server (Apache) which actually sits on port 80 and communicates with the portsnap client? Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F60443.2040301>