Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:47:32 +0300
From:      "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com>
To:        Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem)
Message-ID:  <cb5206420511100647h5fbc1946n88f3fac1e449e758@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <43725078.6000303@freebsd.org>
References:  <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> <43725078.6000303@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/9/05, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote:
> >>If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't =
do
> >>it.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with=
 10
> > times the changes?
>
> Yes.  Each time you run CVSup, it transmits a list of all the files in th=
e
> tree; if your ports tree is almost up-to-date already, then this "overhea=
d"
> cost is in fact the largest contributor to the bandwidth used.  This prob=
lem
> does not occur with portsnap to any significant extent; updating once an =
hour
> uses less than 1% extra bandwidth compared to updating every day.
>
> > Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap.  Is there any reason in the =
world
> > why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of ports
> > from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap to=
day?
>
> The other common reason for being unable to use portsnap is if a user has=
 made
> their own personal changes to a port (e.g., an added patch).  Portsnap wi=
ll
> remove such changes the next time the port is updated, while cvs will att=
empt
> to merge the modifications.
>
> Colin Percival
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o=
rg"
>

There are a couple more points against portsnap:
- it lags behind by a few hours.
- setting up a mirror is still undocumented

Both issues are purely technical, and hopefully
will be dealt with soon.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420511100647h5fbc1946n88f3fac1e449e758>