From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Dec 21 1: 2:37 2000 From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 21 01:02:35 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C87D437B400 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4426 invoked by uid 1000); 21 Dec 2000 09:00:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:00:59 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: Andrew Reilly Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Integration of ports and 3rd party anoncvs repositories? Message-ID: <20001221110058.A2990@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Reilly , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20001221103408.A76507@gurney.reilly.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001221103408.A76507@gurney.reilly.home>; from areilly@bigpond.net.au on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:34:09AM +1100 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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