On 11/10/05, Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew P. wrote: > > There are a couple more points against portsnap: > > - it lags behind by a few hours. > > This is true (well, 1-2 hours). However, the reason for this > is that portsnap builds ports INDEX files, and since portsnap > is usually more up-to-date than the INDEX files fetched by > "make fetchindex", the lag time is probably less of a problem > than one might imagine at first. > > That said, the build times should be improving somewhat as I > move portsnap builds to some new hardware in the near future. > > > - setting up a mirror is still undocumented > > I'm working on it; but for most users, a caching HTTP proxy > will be far better than an actual portsnap mirror. > > Colin Percival >
satbsd# date Fri Nov 11 00:11:04 MSK 2005 satbsd# portsnap fetch Fetching snapshot tag... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu Nov 10 02:28:12 MSK 2005 to Thu Nov 10 21:14:57 MSK 2005. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. ... That's 3 hours, and I often see more. But that doesn't really matter (as in "really really"). Portsnap still would have saved many lives even if it lagged by a week, and I think that some humble hardware donation just might solve the problem by cutting down even those 3 hours. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
