portsnap and portupgrade

Pieter Donche Pieter.Donche at ua.ac.be
Thu Dec 18 15:41:25 UTC 2008

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, RW wrote:

> [ Since this is on-topic, I'm taking it back on-list.  ]
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:11:26 +0100 (CET)
> Pieter Donche <Pieter.Donche at ua.ac.be> wrote:
>> 'Installing the tree from disk' do you mean with that: the install
>> during sysinstall of /usr/ports from what is on the
> Yes
>> If so, if you have did create a /usr/ports from sysinstall, then only
>> a portsnap fetch has to be done, and no portsnap extract
>> but only a portsnap update when you need updating a program you
>> installed previously from the ports tree ?
> Portsnap doesn't know about anything in the ports tree that it didn't
> put there itself. For that reason it needs to bring the tree to an
> initial known-state by replacing all port directories and other
> files. For the same reason you shouldn't mix portsnap and c[v]sup.

So, do you confirm my statement that only a portsnap update is OK?

>> But is it then not better to do a portsnap upgrade immmediatly after
>> that first portsnap fetch, since fetch will only get compressed .gz
>> files (not decompressed to /usr/ports), so /usr/ports will still be
>> of the date of the release of the 7.0 (febr. 2008) ?
> The extract will bring the tree up-to-date with the fetched snapshot.
> You could use extract instead of update all the time, except that it's
> slower and deletes user generated files in the ports directories (e.g.
> README.html).

So since it's faster and doesn't delete user generated files, 
upgrade is always to be preferred over extract, right?

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list