On 09/01/2012 03:48, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> [ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ]
>
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
>> Jim Pazarena wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
>>> I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compar
[ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ]
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
> Jim Pazarena wrote:
>
>
> > Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
> > I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
>
> In normal use portsnap should be muc
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700
Jim Pazarena wrote:
> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
> I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
In normal use portsnap should be much faster than csup.
The initial "portsnap extract" is much slow
On 29 August 2012 13:27, Jim Pazarena wrote:
> I am concerned, now, because I would have assumed that csup
> actually DOES update me, where it would seem that it has a failing,
> at least WRT japanese/kiten
>
> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
> I will switch to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote:
> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup?
> I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup.
csup is just fine, but you probably did something that confused it. If
you want your speed back, you can
Alberto Villa wrote, On 2012-08-29 8:17 AM:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote:
I use: csup -g -L 2 ports-supfile
and ports-supfile
has all the recommended defaults, including "ports-all"
what am I missing?
I don't know, maybe something went wrong in the past, but for sure
