Portsnap is now in the base system

Mike Jakubik mikej at rogers.com
Tue Jan 17 10:51:01 PST 2006

Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Jeremy Messenger <mezz7 at cox.net> wrote:
>>> 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.

This i did not consider, the ability to use plain http would be 
beneficial for me, as i have some clients that are heavily firewalled, 
and using cvsup is not possible. So to also be able to fetch current 
sources would be nice too!

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list