Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:19:23 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Oliver Lehmann <lehmann@ans-netz.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap - overwrite local changes Message-ID: <50FE91DB.1070702@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <20130122140038.Horde.8nr2dFTy5nEGcYtN8VWTjA6@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20130122131026.Horde.7qCMctAArqe-64q8vD2RTA1@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <50FE859B.7010607@madpilot.net> <20130122140038.Horde.8nr2dFTy5nEGcYtN8VWTjA6@avocado.salatschuessel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/22/13 14:00, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > > Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> wrote: > >> If you use small modifications on a ingle system(or just a few) you >> could track the ports tree with subversion, which will be happy to >> keep and try to merge your local modifcations. You can also diff and >> revert your modifications using it, which can be quite handy. >> >> Disvantage is you will sometime need to merge conflicts which could >> require you to study subversion more than what you really want. > > Ok, subversion came also to my mind but I guess portsnap is faster then > svn is. The thing with svn is, that I would always need to examine the > logs if there where conflicts generated. > > I don't want to keep my local changes. I would like to have command > which just gets me a 1:1 copy of the "current" ports tree and deletes > or overwrites my local changes. There is nothing I want to get merged. Ok, I misunderstood your problem then. I think your best bet is deleting the old tree and extracting it again with portsnap, this would not be very fast though. If you use zfs you could leverage it, using snapshots and clones. You could snapshot the official tree, clone it, modify the cloned one(munted in /usr/ports) and when you upgrade destroy the clone and create a new clone from the updated official tree, which would be clean without local modifications. subversion could help too. You could perform a "svn revert -R ." followed by svn up. This would be faster than "rm -r * && portsnap extract" (done in /usr/ports, obviously) -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50FE91DB.1070702>