/usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:55:00 -0500, Colin Percival <cperciva at freebsd.org>  
wrote:

> Doug Barton wrote:
>> Colin Percival wrote:
>>> I'm going to be bringing portsnap into the base system very soon
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find the discussion where this was
>> agreed? I assume in the archives on -arch somewhere, with some input  
>> from
>> portmgr?
>
> Portsnap itself hasn't been explicitly discussed on freebsd-arch, but it
> was mentioned (along with FreeBSD Update) as a reason for adding bsdiff
> to the base system when that was discussed.  Given the enthusiastic  
> response
> I've received to portsnap, from members of portmgr, dozens of  
> committers, and
> innumerable users, I didn't think it was necessary to raise the question  
> here.
> In the past six months I've stated on numerous occasions my intention to  
> add
> portsnap into the base system, and I don't think I've ever found anyone  
> who
> did not agree with this.
>
> But for formality: Does anyone have an objection to having the base  
> system
> enlarged by about 40kB by adding a program for updating the ports tree  
> which
> is faster, uses less bandwidth, is more secure, and is easier to use  
> than cvsup,
> while also having the side benefit of distributing pre-built INDEX files?

Will portsnap improvement on to not delete any unoffical ports? I have  
about 15 unoffical ports here in local machine and they are living in  
/usr/ports for other tools' sake like portupgrade/pkgdb. I have never use  
it, but I read in the bottom of http://www.daemonology.net/portsnap/ .

Cheers,
Mezz

> Colin Percival


-- 
mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome at FreeBSD.org