Portsnap is now in the base system

Mike Jakubik mikej at rogers.com
Tue Jan 17 10:43:26 PST 2006

Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:36:04 -0600, Alexander Leidinger 
> <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:
>> Jeremy Messenger <mezz7 at cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Is there an utility (cvsup-replacement) like this for base 
>>>>>> system  sources ?
>>>>> See csup: http://mu.org/~mux/csup.html. But it's not ready yet.
>> csup is a rewrite of cvsup in C. So it's not a replacement like 
>> portsnap is,
>> it's just a different implementation of the same procedure.
>>>> Why would one want to replace cvsup? It works great!
>>> You won't be asking that kind of question if you read there in the 
>>> second  paragraph. ;-)
>> I use both. For *me* the main reason to use portsnap was, that it is 
>> able to
>> fetch updates if the only way to get something from the outside is http
>> (e.g. via a caching proxy). This doesn't matter at home (where I use 
>> both:
>> portsnap to update where I don't need to modify the ports collection, 
>> and
>> cvsup+cvs for ports collection where I make changes). None of those 
>> reasons
>> where outlined in the (removed) paragraph. So I think the question is 
>> valid.
> I think, he means why would one want Csup to replace CVSup instead 
> Portsnap replace CVSup. The second paragraph is a valid answer for 
> Csup to replace CVSup, but not Portsnap.

No, thats not what i meant.

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list