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
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 fetchi
On Thursday 10 November 2005 06:55 am, Daniel Gerzo wrote:
> Szia Andrew,
>
> Thursday, November 10, 2005, 3:47:32 PM, you wrote:
> > There are a couple more points against portsnap:
> > - it lags behind by a few hours.
>
> Actually, even cvsup is behind by a few hours, if you are not syncing
> aga
On 11/9/05, Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote:
> >>If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do
> >>it.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 11:13, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do
> > it.
>
> Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10
> times the chang
Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote:
>>If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do
>>it.
>
> Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10
> times the changes?
Yes. Each time you run CVSup, it
