Re: Portsnap is now in the base system

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:36:04 -0600, Alexander Leidinger  
<Alexander_at_Leidinger.net> wrote:

> Jeremy Messenger <mezz7_at_cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Is there an utility (cvsup-replacement) like this for base system   
>>>>> sources ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See csup: http://mu.org/~mux/csup.html. But it's not ready yet.
>
> csup is a rewrite of cvsup in C. So it's not a replacement like portsnap  
> is,
> it's just a different implementation of the same procedure.
>
>>> Why would one want to replace cvsup? It works great!
>>
>> You won't be asking that kind of question if you read there in the  
>> second  paragraph. ;-)
>
> I use both. For *me* the main reason to use portsnap was, that it is  
> able to
> fetch updates if the only way to get something from the outside is http
> (e.g. via a caching proxy). This doesn't matter at home (where I use  
> both:
> portsnap to update where I don't need to modify the ports collection, and
> cvsup+cvs for ports collection where I make changes). None of those  
> reasons
> where outlined in the (removed) paragraph. So I think the question is  
> valid.

I think, he means why would one want Csup to replace CVSup instead  
Portsnap replace CVSup. The second paragraph is a valid answer for Csup to  
replace CVSup, but not Portsnap.

Cheers,
Mezz

> Bye,
> Alexander.


-- 
mezz7_at_cox.net  -  mezz_at_FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome_at_FreeBSD.org