Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:51:11 +0200 From: n j <nino80@gmail.com> To: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MITM attacks against portsnap and freebsd-update Message-ID: <CALf6cgZP6Ps==-vG1P3gbb5w9BovH4jisfSo-xPqRCp1jXRpWA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHAXwYCjAtU3Wh-Y=juxaYQCU=om=bqonaRiq12VXs7nGT_fwA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHAXwYBEtqxpDZJBhRF1=QDi6v97qQvJeYUbDE0kYqEsMbvf_w@mail.gmail.com> <537A704D.6010209@gmail.com> <CAHAXwYCjAtU3Wh-Y=juxaYQCU=om=bqonaRiq12VXs7nGT_fwA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:03 AM, David Noel <david.i.noel@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/19/14, Alnis Morics <alnis.morics@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05/19/2014 23:28, David Noel wrote: > >> I also think it would be an appropriate time to discuss retiring > >> portsnap. > > Subversion checkouts and updates take much more time than Porstnap. > > My experience has been that both portsnap and svn update typically > take under a minute to complete. > > Regardless, don't most people run this in the background with portsnap > cron? > I don't. And I don't regularly update the ports tree. When you regularly update ports tree, the diffs svn update needs to pull are relatively small. When you update, say, once a month, portsnap in my experience gets the job done a lot quicker. My $.02, -- Nino
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALf6cgZP6Ps==-vG1P3gbb5w9BovH4jisfSo-xPqRCp1jXRpWA>