csup vs portsnap was: fresh install of kde4 fails -> japanese/kiten

Doug Barton dougb at FreeBSD.org
Sun Sep 2 07:31:42 UTC 2012


On 09/01/2012 03:48, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> [ RW wrote on Sat  1.Sep'12 at  0:49:54 +0100 ]
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
>> Jim Pazarena wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
>>> I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
>>
>> In normal use portsnap should be much faster than csup. 
>>
>> The initial "portsnap extract" is much slower than a normal "update",
>> and fetching the first compressed snapshot or updating a really ancient
>> one is slower than a normal "fetch" - beyond that portsnap is very fast.
> 
> Agreed. After the first run of `portsnap fetch extract`, subsequent fetch and update using portsnap is certainly faster.

It depends on the volume of changes between updates. For a large volume,
portsnap is unquestionably much slower than csup. Fortunately svn is
faster than both.

Doug

-- 

    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
			-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list