Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:02:32 -0400 From: "David Stanford" <dthomas53@gmail.com> To: "wc_fbsd@xxiii.com" <wc_fbsd@xxiii.com> Cc: Tom Moore <tom@tomstroubleshooting.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cvsup verses Portsnap Message-ID: <f2c91f770605132102v28663bfav982f7131654c4652@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060513234344.02ebfd00@mailsvr.xxiii.com> References: <000301c676b3$9f398b90$6603a8c0@zeus> <6.2.3.4.2.20060513234344.02ebfd00@mailsvr.xxiii.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yea, Colin's the man. http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ highlights all the beneifts. -David On 5/13/06, wc_fbsd@xxiii.com <wc_fbsd@xxiii.com> wrote: > > At 01:35 PM 5/13/2006, Tom Moore wrote: > >Which program is best for retrieving and keeping the ports tree up > >to date? What are some pros and cons of each approach? Is one method > >better than the other? > > I just discovered portsnap a couple months ago after loading a couple > new machines with 6.0. It is AWESOME (thanks, Colin! (the guy that > developed it)). > > Do not even screw with cvsup for your ports. portsnap is faster, > easier, and (I'm told) even lower bandwith and server > overhead. About the only downside, is it has a directory in /var/db > that was about 50MB with a bunch of little files last I looked, and I > suspect it grows with time. But what's disk space these days? > > -Wayne > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f2c91f770605132102v28663bfav982f7131654c4652>