Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:36:33 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated? Message-ID: <CAE63ME5YQ-UJ5z9Mu9-PyxgceK4Gd_oBL4_Pm=e%2Bfp_Z=Mf6_A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <loom.20121126T201404-815@post.gmane.org> References: <50B2A57A.3050500@tundraware.com> <50B2A8D8.90301@FreeBSD.org> <50B2AA07.8090103@tundraware.com> <201211251856.40381.lumiwa@gmail.com> <50B2BEE1.9030903@tundraware.com> <loom.20121126T120530-186@post.gmane.org> <05eafe033134e0771d54dec2d9388c8f@homey.local> <loom.20121126T161423-178@post.gmane.org> <C1998C36-57DF-4ACE-8AF2-09E1885E7176@my.gd> <loom.20121126T170433-746@post.gmane.org> <loom.20121126T182635-720@post.gmane.org> <50B3BA6E.7060303@tundraware.com> <loom.20121126T201404-815@post.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26 November 2012 21:15, jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim Daneliuk <tundra <at> tundraware.com> writes: > >> ... >> One wonders if using svn to keep the ports tree up-to-date might not be >> simpler, and perhaps, more reliable ... > > As managed by portsnap: > $ du -hs /usr/ports/ > 850M /usr/ports/ > > As managed by svn (it took much longer to checkout/download it by comparison): > $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/ > 1.4G /usr/local/ports/ > $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/.svn/ > 702M /usr/local/ports/.svn/ > > One thing about svn is that it is a developer's tool, with its own commands > set (that should never be mixed with UNIX commands w/r to dir/file > manipulation), and that should not be expected to be learned by non-devs. > > For that reasons alone the portsnap-managed ports repo is more generic, > flexible to be handled by user and add-on apps/utilities, looks like more > efficient without that svn overhead resulting from its requirements and > characteristics as a source control system. > > But, svn offers to a user a unique view into ports repo, e.g. history, logs, > info, attributes, etc. > > jb > While we're on the binary vs SVN topic, I'd like to point out I'm *actually running out of inodes* on a virtualized machine (we use these a lot for our dev and preproduction environments) with 5gb of space, when checking out the ports tree. Of course 5gb is quite small but then, this was installed a while back. The transition to SVN means I'm going to have to reinstall these firewalls. There are a lot of them it's going to be a major pain. idk, I'm loathe to use portsnap, I liked CSup just fine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAE63ME5YQ-UJ5z9Mu9-PyxgceK4Gd_oBL4_Pm=e%2Bfp_Z=Mf6_A>