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

[Xin LI]

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 09:14:11AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
> M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <42F61960.4020400 at freebsd.org>
> >             Colin Percival <cperciva at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > : very little reason for anyone to be running
> > : a portsnap mirror unless it's a public mirror,
> > 
> > Our experience with cvsup would suggest otherwise.  Many places with
> > large numbers or even small numbers of machines run cvsup mirrors that
> > are private.  I expect that universities will want to run mirrors that
> > they might not want non-students accessing (eg, internal bandwidth is
> > free, external is expensive).
> 
> Portsnap != CVSup.  In particular, an HTTP proxy which is used by five
> hundred users running portsnap will use less bandwidth than a portsnap
> mirror.  The "right" solution for nearly all organizations is a caching
> HTTP proxy.

I must say that HTTP proxy-able is the 1st reason why I like portsnap.
There are so many people asking "Hey, how can I break the firewall that
blocks cvsup connection?"  Where I can only say "The only solution at
this time would be to negotiate with the local network administrator"
in the pre-postsnap age.  Using CVSup to synchonorize CVS tree while
distributing ports tree through portsnap looks quite convinent for these
people.

Cheers,
-- 
Xin LI <delphij frontfree net>	http://www.delphij.net/
See complete headers for GPG key and other information.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20050808/fbceb3fc/attachment.bin