On 11/9/05, Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? > > Yes. Each time you run CVSup, it transmits a list of all the files in the > tree; if your ports tree is almost up-to-date already, then this "overhead" > cost is in fact the largest contributor to the bandwidth used. This problem > does not occur with portsnap to any significant extent; updating once an hour > uses less than 1% extra bandwidth compared to updating every day. > > > 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? > > The other common reason for being unable to use portsnap is if a user has made > their own personal changes to a port (e.g., an added patch). Portsnap will > remove such changes the next time the port is updated, while cvs will attempt > to merge the modifications. > > Colin Percival > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >
There are a couple more points against portsnap: - it lags behind by a few hours. - setting up a mirror is still undocumented Both issues are purely technical, and hopefully will be dealt with soon. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
