Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:00:59 +0200
From:      Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg>
To:        Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Integration of ports and 3rd party anoncvs repositories?
Message-ID:  <20001221110058.A2990@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
In-Reply-To: <20001221103408.A76507@gurney.reilly.home>; from areilly@bigpond.net.au on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:34:09AM %2B1100
References:  <20001221103408.A76507@gurney.reilly.home>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mmm..  I might be wrong here, but wouldn't tracking the CVS versions
require nightly, if not hourly, test builds from the port maintainer
to make sure that ongoing commits do not interfere with local patches?
I can see your point (and it's a mighty valid one, too - some FreeBSD
users do not even pay per megabyte, but use modems instead :).  However,
it is exactly those monster pieces of software that usually require
the most TLC from maintainers, and tracking CVS would seem to me to
require even more :(

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
This sentence was in the past tense.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:34:09AM +1100, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> There are some large and fairly rapidly evolving code bases out
> there at the moment.  They aren't part of the base FreeBSD
> distribution, but are frequently installed via the ports
> collection:  XFree86, Wine, mozilla, kde and gnome, probably
> openoffice soon.  All of these are available through incremental
> means: anoncvs, CVSup, or inter-tarball diffs.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the current Ports
> facility is based on the notion of operating from distribution
> tarballs that wind up in /usr/ports/distfiles, one way or
> another.  Some of these tarballs are now really big, which (for
> those of us who pay for our bandwidth by the megabyte) is a
> disincentive for staying current.
> 
> I've managed to track Wine for a while by building my own
> tarballs incrementally, with the deltas.  I'm just about to have
> a go at grabbing XFree86-4.0.2 by CVSup.
> 
> Has anyone been thinking of tweaking the ports "extract" target
> to copy from a local copy of the original repository, rather
> than going straight for a tarball file?
> 
> How could we standardise access to source repositories from
> different vendors, so that the ports makefiles could determine
> if they were present automagically?
> 
> Would it be best to go for full local CVS repositories, and have
> the "extract" target do a cvs co, or could we get by with local
> "checked-out" trees?  (I haven't really used CVS myself yet: I
> follow FreeBSD-stable with CVSup in "check out" mode.)


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001221110058.A2990>