Jeremy Messenger wrote: > 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. No, thats not what i meant.Received on Tue Jan 17 2006 - 17:43:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:50 UTC