Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:15:45 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Personalised patches in ports Message-ID: <20071126131545.5e52885b@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <474A8CA5.60300@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20071121221955.10f80f09@tania.servebbs.org> <20071123032011.57dcfc96@gumby.homeunix.com.> <200711260452.lAQ4qVuN098618@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <20071126072727.GA3259@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <474A8CA5.60300@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:06:45 +0000 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > 'portsnap extract' or 'portsnap update' will however blow away local > additions in the part of the ports tree it is operating on -- there > are clear warnings to that effect in the man page. There are clear warnings that 'portsnap extract' will delete extra files, but not for 'portsnap update'. And my recollection, from when I briefly tried portsnap, is that it leaves derived files, like README.html, untouched. So I guess that after the initial extract is done portsnap behaves like csup in this respect. I think the main difference between csup and 'portsnap update' is in the way they handle files that are under CVS, such as port makefiles. csup always removes changes, which I like because I know where I stand. I think with portsnap it depends on the CVS history.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071126131545.5e52885b>