Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Gerard Seibert wrote: > >>> IMHO, it might be a lot easier for him to use portsnap. Especially >>> if he is not familiar with the FBSD ports system. Just my opinion >>> though. > >> CVSUP isn't that difficult IMHO to learn, and is a better, more >> efficient way to download the ports Makefiles. > > In what way? For typical applications, lower bandwidth usage is > supposedly an advantage of portsnap. > >> It will take him all of >> 10-20 minutes to configure if he reads the documentation and uses the >> example file. > > I would think so. And it can be used with arbitrary cvs trees, > including the FreeBSD source tree. On the other hand, it doesn't > come in the FreeBSD base system, and it doesn't sign the updates.
But csup(1) is in the base system for values of base system equal to
6.1-STABLE or better. csup(1) is cvsup(1) reimplemented in plain C
and apart from the graphical display stuff is a drop in replacement
for cvsup(1).
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
