Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>> IMHO, it might be a lot easier for him to use portsnap. Especially
>>> if he is not familiar with the FBSD ports system. Just my opinion
>>> though.
>>    CVSUP isn't that difficult IMHO to learn, and is a better, more
>> efficient way to download the ports Makefiles.
> In what way?  For typical applications, lower bandwidth usage is
> supposedly an advantage of portsnap.
>>                                                It will take him all of
>> 10-20 minutes to configure if he reads the documentation and uses the
>> example file.
> I would think so.  And it can be used with arbitrary cvs trees,
> including the FreeBSD source tree.  On the other hand, it doesn't
> come in the FreeBSD base system, and it doesn't sign the updates.

But csup(1) is in the base system for values of base system equal to
6.1-STABLE or better.  csup(1) is cvsup(1) reimplemented in plain C
and apart from the graphical display stuff is a drop in replacement
for cvsup(1).



Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                       7 Priory Courtyard
                                                      Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey         Ramsgate
                                                      Kent, CT11 9PW

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to