Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:15:18 +0000 (UTC) From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated? Message-ID: <loom.20121126T201404-815@post.gmane.org> References: <50B2A57A.3050500@tundraware.com> <50B2A8D8.90301@FreeBSD.org> <50B2AA07.8090103@tundraware.com> <201211251856.40381.lumiwa@gmail.com> <50B2BEE1.9030903@tundraware.com> <loom.20121126T120530-186@post.gmane.org> <05eafe033134e0771d54dec2d9388c8f@homey.local> <loom.20121126T161423-178@post.gmane.org> <C1998C36-57DF-4ACE-8AF2-09E1885E7176@my.gd> <loom.20121126T170433-746@post.gmane.org> <loom.20121126T182635-720@post.gmane.org> <50B3BA6E.7060303@tundraware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Daneliuk <tundra <at> tundraware.com> writes: > ... > One wonders if using svn to keep the ports tree up-to-date might not be > simpler, and perhaps, more reliable ... As managed by portsnap: $ du -hs /usr/ports/ 850M /usr/ports/ As managed by svn (it took much longer to checkout/download it by comparison): $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/ 1.4G /usr/local/ports/ $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/.svn/ 702M /usr/local/ports/.svn/ One thing about svn is that it is a developer's tool, with its own commands set (that should never be mixed with UNIX commands w/r to dir/file manipulation), and that should not be expected to be learned by non-devs. For that reasons alone the portsnap-managed ports repo is more generic, flexible to be handled by user and add-on apps/utilities, looks like more efficient without that svn overhead resulting from its requirements and characteristics as a source control system. But, svn offers to a user a unique view into ports repo, e.g. history, logs, info, attributes, etc. jb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20121126T201404-815>