Correct syntax of "supfile" to keep ports upgraded?
rsmith at xs4all.nl
Fri Jul 30 18:39:00 UTC 2010
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:12:36AM -0700, Ed Flecko wrote:
> Thank you Roland; I didn't know portsnap is part of the base install.
> >From a book that I have (Absolute FreeBSD - 2nd Edition), it says"
> PORTSNAP VS. CSUP
> Use either portsnap(8) or csup(1) to update the Ports Collection, but
> not both.
> The two tools are incompatible.
I'd say using both is useless, but OK.
> csup is most useful if you are tracking
> -stable or -current, while portsnap is best for production systems where you
> use binary updates.
This is misleading, IMHO. Yes, csup is best for tracking the system source, but
that has nothing to do with ports. Portsnap is much faster than csup for ports,
regardless if you are using packages or if you compile everything yourself!
One thing to keep in mind is that "The Ports Collection supports the latest
release on the FreeBSD-CURRENT and FreeBSD-STABLE branches." (quoting from
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/). Maybe this is what the author is referring to?
If so I think it poorly worded.
What I would suggest is:
* portsnap for keeping the ports tree updated
* csup for updating the FreeBSD sources
* portmaster for upgrading installed ports (by compiling from source)
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100730/9abf75b8/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions