On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Pieter Donche wrote: > >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?
After the initial fetch and extract, yes, you should use update. > >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? Yes. As RW has already noted, extract will replace the entire ports tree with the pristine version in portsnap's archive. This is quite a lengthy process, given the size of the ports tree these days. update on the other hand, only replaces those ports that are different between the currently installed tree, and the tree in the new portsnap archive. I hope that makes sense... Dan -- Daniel Bye _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \
Description: PGP signature