Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:44:42 -0800
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: /usr/ports/ too big?
Message-ID:  <20000212194442.B43572@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <00021221204202.02429@nomad.dataplex.net>; from rkw@dataplex.net on Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:19PM -0600
References:  <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <20000212161556.D51878@shale.csir.co.za> <20000212184249.D42371@dragon.nuxi.com> <00021221204202.02429@nomad.dataplex.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:19PM -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > It doesn't.  ar files are binary, binary files cannot be put into our CVS
> > archive.  Instead we would have to uuencode them. 
> 
> They don't have to be!  You could just as well use `shar`. It is
> isomorphic and not encoded. 

Get real, the last thing I'm going to do when maintaining ports is to
have to shar them up before checking in a change.
 
> I don't think I'm alone. Others have complained about the working size of the
> ports collection in terms of both inodes and bytes.

I haven't heard anyone else pop up and join your bandwagon in this
approach.  It is known the inode pressure is large and last month we
already discussed ways of dealing with that.  IDE disks are now $0.08/gig
so I don't see the big deal in bytes usage compared to making commiters
and people that submit patches lives harder.

-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)


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?20000212194442.B43572>