Joe Altman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 04:20:25PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
Have you tried checking out via SVN which now is the desired
default method (even though it's not integrated in the base
install and the "make" scripting mechanism)?
ISTM that SVN is not the default method for users; but portsnap is the
preferred method for users.
Developers, OTOH, may find SVN useful.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-portsnap.html
I have no idea if the OP is a user or a developer; but I do know that at
least a cursory reading of the Handbook is a good idea, since the OP
question seems to be directly addressed in the Handbook.
Regards,
Joe
As the OP I see no need to pollute my system with a complete ports tree
when I only have to compile php5 to enable the apache module. Thats over
kill in my book. Sure the handbook says to use portsnap but that still
loads the complete ports tree. crazy.
My ports tree only has the ports I have to recompile to change defaults
used in package. This approach saves disk and backup times.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
