On 01/27/13 07:22, Thomas Mueller wrote:
<snip>
Unless you have a specific reason why portsnap doesn't fit your use
case, it's definitely the way to go for just keeping a ports tree
updated regularly.
I've always used "portsnap fetch update" after the initial "portsnap fetch"
and "portsnap extract". What would be the adverse side effect of using svn
instead?
Tom
<snip>
I've used svn pretty much since day one as it only updates what has been
updated, portsnap updates the whole tree regardless. They both take
approximately the same time but most of svn's time is comparing local
and remote working directories afaik. svn usually finishes within 10
minutes or less.
Some people don't like having svn's working directory on their system
(not sure why, but the world goes round just the same), but other than
that I'd say there has been no adverse affects aside having the latest
ports for your FreeBSD machine.
--
Yours in Christ,
Joseph A Nagy Jr
"Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction
is stupid." -- Proverbs 12:1
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
Original content CopyFree (F) under the OWL http://owl.apotheon.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
