Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:38:32 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated? Message-ID: <50B38CF8.7060603@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <k900u9$62c$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <50B2A57A.3050500@tundraware.com> <50B2A8D8.90301@FreeBSD.org> <50B2AA07.8090103@tundraware.com> <201211251856.40381.lumiwa@gmail.com> <50B2BEE1.9030903@tundraware.com> <50B31AAB.6000903@FreeBSD.org> <50B36500.7040308@tundraware.com> <CAAdA2WMVmtdsC3zpjz3WsmdopsuavhcVTC8TFuG-n_auPB77rg@mail.gmail.com> <50B377F4.1020507@freebsd.org> <k900u9$62c$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/11/2012 15:13, Michael Powell wrote: > As a result of the security incident I switched away from csup and am now > using portsnap for ports, and svn for source. The only disconcerting item I > noticed is the 500-some MB .svn directory now under /usr/src/. SVN keeps a 2nd pristine copy of everything you check out in that .svn directory. It's necessary when you use it for development work, but otherwise, as you say, a waste of space. > Can using freebsd-update for source update(s) eliminate the need for this > 500MB waste of space? Or is there some switch for svn which could accomplish > same? freebsd-update will have some overhead -- it downloads changesets to somewhere under /var before expanding them onto the system. I haven't measured how much this amounts to compared to SVN, but I'd assume if you limit yourself to updating just the system sources with freebsd-update then it should use up less space than using SVN. Normally freebsd-update would have updates to compiled programs as well, which could move the goalposts significantly. Cheers, Matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50B38CF8.7060603>