Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
From:      jb <>
Subject:   Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated?
Message-ID:  <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <05eafe033134e0771d54dec2d9388c8f@homey.local> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Tim Daneliuk <tundra <at>> 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.


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>