On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:22:02 -0500 Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I've always used "portsnap fetch update" after the initial "portsnap > fetch" and "portsnap extract". What would be the adverse side effect > of using svn instead? RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> responded: > In general it's best to avoid mixing update tools unless you fully > understand all the corner cases and know it's safe. > The most significant problem is they can lose track of what files > need to be deleted, which can lead to obsolete patch files being left > in the tree. One of the functions of "portsnap extract" is to eliminate > extra files in port directories to avoid this problem. You miss my point. The intent was not to mix portsnap and svn but to use svn in a separate location, /usr/ports as opposed to the present /BETA1/usr/ports, with the intent to switch to svn. Of course, I realize I'd have to update at least three etc/make.conf files: hard drive installation, USB stick amd64 and USB stick i386. Tom _______________________________________________ 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"
