Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating

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
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"