On Tue, 2004-Oct-26 20:58:54 +0100, Colin Percival wrote: >CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. However, until now >it's been the only option for keeping an up-to-date ports tree, .... > >To provide a secure, lightweight, and fast alternative to CVSup, >I've written portsnap. It sounds like you've re-invented CTM rather than a CVSup replacement. Would you care to provide a comparison of portsnap with CTM? Based on your description, the differences are: - portsnap uses HTTP, CTM uses either FTP or mail. - portsnap is always signed, CTM is only signed via mail. - CTM is part of the base system - ports-cur CTM deltas are currently generated every 8 hours -- Peter Jeremy _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"