Re: Portsnap is now in the base system

Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Jeremy Messenger <mezz7_at_cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.

This i did not consider, the ability to use plain http would be 
beneficial for me, as i have some clients that are heavily firewalled, 
and using cvsup is not possible. So to also be able to fetch current 
sources would be nice too!