Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:16:31 -0600 From: Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Request for comments - svnup in base ? Message-ID: <54BBF87F.5080003@my.hennepintech.edu> In-Reply-To: <20150119024349.T82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <mailman.61.1421582401.23573.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20150119024349.T82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2015.01.18 11:45, Ian Smith wrote: > svnlite only arrived with 10.1, so is not what 8.x and 9.x users need. 10.0, not 10.1. I am a bit surprised that it wasn't backported to 9.3, though. > It doesn't appear as an available port for 9.3. Its manpage is useless, > an s/svn/svnlite/g job on svn(1), neither of which instruct in usage at > all, referring to a site that, nowhere that I could find, even mentions > svnlite and friends. Developer friendly, casual user hostile at best. The svn(1) man page isn't very useful either. However, I do agree that the documentation could be a lot better at explaining what svnlite is and how it differs from normal svn. > So just how 'lite' is svnlite? Could someone running 10.1+ please > replace svnup with svnlite in equivalents to the following queries: > > smithi@x200:~ % ll `which svnup` > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 47040 Jan 19 01:26 /usr/local/bin/svnup [candace ~]# ls -l $(which svnlite) -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3210464 Jan 3 22:26 /usr/bin/svnlite > smithi@x200:~ % ldd `which svnup` > /usr/local/bin/svnup: > libmd.so.5 => /lib/libmd.so.5 (0x800824000) > libssl.so.6 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.6 (0x800a34000) > libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x800c8a000) > libcrypto.so.6 => /lib/libcrypto.so.6 (0x800fe5000) [candace ~]# ldd $(which svnlite) /usr/bin/svnlite: libbsdxml.so.4 => /lib/libbsdxml.so.4 (0x800b29000) libz.so.6 => /lib/libz.so.6 (0x800d50000) libcrypt.so.5 => /lib/libcrypt.so.5 (0x800f66000) libmagic.so.4 => /usr/lib/libmagic.so.4 (0x801186000) libcrypto.so.7 => /lib/libcrypto.so.7 (0x8013a4000) libssl.so.7 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.7 (0x801798000) libthr.so.3 => /lib/libthr.so.3 (0x801a03000) libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x801c28000) > > smithi@x200:~ % ll /lib/libmd.so.5 /usr/lib/libssl.so.6 /lib/libc.so.7 /lib/libcrypto.so.6 > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1407536 Jun 25 2014 /lib/libc.so.7 > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1748528 Jun 25 2014 /lib/libcrypto.so.6 > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 69072 Jun 25 2014 /lib/libmd.so.5 > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 355576 Jun 25 2014 /usr/lib/libssl.so.6 [candace ~]# ls -l /lib/libbsdxml.so.4 /lib/libz.so.6 /lib/libcrypt.so.5 /usr/lib/libmagic.so.4 /lib/libcrypto.so.7 /usr/lib/libssl.so.7 /lib/libthr.so.3 /lib/libc.so.7 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 161760 Jan 3 22:25 /lib/libbsdxml.so.4 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1647720 Jan 3 22:25 /lib/libc.so.7 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 62008 Jan 3 22:25 /lib/libcrypt.so.5 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 2038496 Jan 3 22:26 /lib/libcrypto.so.7 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 106120 Jan 3 22:25 /lib/libthr.so.3 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 89576 Jan 3 22:25 /lib/libz.so.6 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 123976 Jan 3 22:25 /usr/lib/libmagic.so.4 -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 439776 Jan 3 22:26 /usr/lib/libssl.so.7 > > smithi@x200:~ % du -hd0 /usr/src > 830M /usr/src > smithi@x200:~ % du -hd0 /usr/ports > 1.6G /usr/ports [candace ~]# du -hd0 /usr/src 783M /usr/src and FWIW: [candace ~]# du -sh /usr/src/.svn 398M /usr/src/.svn This is a two-week-old checkout of 10-STABLE (from which the aforementioned binaries were built). I don't have a ports tree from SVN (both trees I use for poudriere are using portsnap at the moment). I'm not sure any of the above matters too much, but I might do a speed comparison of svn, svnup, and svnlite, which I think will be the most important for most people if they are indeed that much different from each other in that regard. On a side note, backticks are bad and you shouldn't use them. :P > Bottom line: I don't think plugging to get svnup into base is worth > pursuing. Few developers took any interest that I noticed, it was > largely tested by users. John Mehr has been very responsive to any > issues. To one to whom C is mostly read-only, it reads very well. > > I think it's ok as a port .. perhaps a small section in the Handbook? A mention in the handbook would definitely be good.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54BBF87F.5080003>