Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:48:36 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating Message-ID: <20041027194835.GD79646@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2004-Oct-26 20:58:54 +0100, Colin Percival wrote: >CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. However, until now >it's been the only option for keeping an up-to-date ports tree, ... > >To provide a secure, lightweight, and fast alternative to CVSup, >I've written portsnap. It sounds like you've re-invented CTM rather than a CVSup replacement. Would you care to provide a comparison of portsnap with CTM? Based on your description, the differences are: - portsnap uses HTTP, CTM uses either FTP or mail. - portsnap is always signed, CTM is only signed via mail. - CTM is part of the base system - ports-cur CTM deltas are currently generated every 8 hours -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041027194835.GD79646>