Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:26:50 +0000 (UTC) From: "Helmut Schneider" <jumper99@gmx.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn and/or portsnap Message-ID: <xn0i2vsd54cwlg001@news.gmane.org> References: <xn0i2vr1c2kufw000@news.gmane.org> <20120909130611.da2409e4.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon wrote: > On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:37:03 +0000 (UTC), Helmut Schneider wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm running a custom kernel so I (guess I) need svn in future to > > fetch sources instead of cvsup. Should I still use portsnap then > > for ports or also fetch them via svn? > > Ports and system sources are managed independently. You can > use whatever tool you want. The question should read: If I need to install svn anyway, is there an advantage of portsnap over svn to fetch ports. > Note that portsnap might not deliver the most current ports tree > for a given point in time. For "short time deltas", CVS has often > proven to be the better tool, but of course portsnap has significant > advantages (e. g. faster for longer pauses between ports > tree updates, better integration with "make update" target). > Depending on your updating habits, choose the tool that > works best for you. Currently I'm updating ports and src twice a day so I will keep using svn for both. Thanks.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xn0i2vsd54cwlg001>