Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:55:32 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <CADLo83_r8uv9EQpqFE9zOQDq8BAXP9u=jyDwagsXkWA9nXeRJw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130123153724.GA79995@e-Gitt.NET> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <87mww00w89.fsf@Shanna.FStaals.net> <20130123153724.GA79995@e-Gitt.NET>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Jan 2013 15:37, "Oliver Brandmueller" <ob@e-gitt.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:12:22PM +0100, Frank Staals wrote: > > This type of question has been asked quite a few times recently. At this > > point there is no svn version of csup, however there were people working > > on it (or at least: there is a svnsup project). For details please > > search recent ports or questions mailing list archives. As far as I know > > there is also no alternative svn-client. > > Pointer to svnsup is fine; it seems I just missed to the first hint. > > > I'm kind of surprised for the need of this though. Why not simply use > > portsnap if you are not actively developing ports? > > Well, for ports this is mostly fine, though on several places I prefer > to use csup (or svn now) even for ports, since I maintain quite a set of > local patches - this sometimes gives problems together with potsnap. > Where this is neede, I have a shared ports tree anyway, so the whole svn > setup is only needed in one machine. > > But my main concern is the system sources anyway. freebsd-update is not > feasible for me, as described in the original post. The single binaries inside the archives at [1] may help you out. I built them fairly recently, so they should be up to date (ish), and they should be fine on 9+. Just untar and use. Chris [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/svn-static/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_r8uv9EQpqFE9zOQDq8BAXP9u=jyDwagsXkWA9nXeRJw>