On 09/01/2012 03:48, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote: > [ RW wrote on Sat 1.Sep'12 at 0:49:54 +0100 ] > >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:14 -0700 >> Jim Pazarena wrote: >> >> >>> Which is the recommended way to stay PORT current? portsnap or csup? >>> I will switch to portsnap, but it is pretty slow compared to csup. >> >> In normal use portsnap should be much faster than csup. >> >> The initial "portsnap extract" is much slower than a normal "update", >> and fetching the first compressed snapshot or updating a really ancient >> one is slower than a normal "fetch" - beyond that portsnap is very fast. > > Agreed. After the first run of `portsnap fetch extract`, subsequent fetch and > update using portsnap is certainly faster.
It depends on the volume of changes between updates. For a large volume, portsnap is unquestionably much slower than csup. Fortunately svn is faster than both. Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909) _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"