cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem)

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 11:13, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do
> > it.
>
> Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10
> times the changes?
>
> Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap.  Is there any reason in the
> world why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of
> ports from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap
> today?

One thing I noticed about portsnap that is either a "feature" or not is it 
doesn't catch changes you make in the tree.  For example if you modify a 
port's Makefile and that port isn't part of the update it won't change, with
cvsup it will.

For setting up a new, clean port tree portsnap is wonderful, much faster than 
cvsup and probably way easier on the servers as well.

-Mike