Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:38:32 +0000
From:      Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated?
Message-ID:  <50B38CF8.7060603@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <k900u9$62c$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <50B2A57A.3050500@tundraware.com> <50B2A8D8.90301@FreeBSD.org> <50B2AA07.8090103@tundraware.com> <201211251856.40381.lumiwa@gmail.com> <50B2BEE1.9030903@tundraware.com> <50B31AAB.6000903@FreeBSD.org> <50B36500.7040308@tundraware.com> <CAAdA2WMVmtdsC3zpjz3WsmdopsuavhcVTC8TFuG-n_auPB77rg@mail.gmail.com> <50B377F4.1020507@freebsd.org> <k900u9$62c$1@ger.gmane.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 26/11/2012 15:13, Michael Powell wrote:
> As a result of the security incident I switched away from csup and am now 
> using portsnap for ports, and svn for source. The only disconcerting item I 
> noticed is the 500-some MB .svn directory now under /usr/src/.

SVN keeps a 2nd pristine copy of everything you check out in that .svn
directory.  It's necessary when you use it for development work, but
otherwise, as you say, a waste of space.

> Can using freebsd-update for source update(s) eliminate the need for this 
> 500MB waste of space? Or is there some switch for svn which could accomplish 
> same?

freebsd-update will have some overhead -- it downloads changesets to
somewhere under /var before expanding them onto the system.  I haven't
measured how much this amounts to compared to SVN, but I'd assume if you
limit yourself to updating just the system sources with freebsd-update
then it should use up less space than using SVN.  Normally
freebsd-update would have updates to compiled programs as well, which
could move the goalposts significantly.

	Cheers,

	Matthew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50B38CF8.7060603>