Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:20:58 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Message-ID: <00021222301300.02765@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <20000212194442.B43572@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <00021221204202.02429@nomad.dataplex.net> <20000212194442.B43572@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > 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 didn't suggest that you do so! I suggested that doing so be a part of the distribution system. > IDE disks are now $0.08/gig I think that you are wrong by an order of magnitude. But even if the cost of the storage replicating material on thousands of systems is not that significant, there are other "costs". Read/Write and transport costs are not improving that rapidly. > so I don't see the big deal in bytes usage compared to making commiters > and people that submit patches lives harder. I suggest that you read my proposal instead of just reacting. And you have still not addressed the size problem. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@Dataplex.NET 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?00021222301300.02765>