Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:44:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Olaf Wagner <wagner@luthien.in-berlin.de> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding bsdiff to the base system Message-ID: <200504070644.j376imwB027984@luthien.iceflower.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <424BD4FB.1050304@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <424BD4FB.1050304@wadham.ox.ac.uk> you wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > I'll conceed that portsnap is not yet used by the majority of our user > base; but I think that is largely because portsnap is still quite new, > and thus relatively unknown. At present portsnap is the only mechanism > available by which most users can securely maintain an up-to-date copy > of the FreeBSD ports tree; it also provides some other advantages over > cvsup (reduced bandwidth and ports INDEX/INDEX-5/INDEX-6 files). Since Just out of interest: how does it do that? I've not tested it yet, but what intelligence or knowledge does it use to be so much more efficient (1/10) than CVSup? (I myself haven't found anything as efficient as CVSup yet, at least for replicating CVS repositories...) > portsnap and its dependencies will not significantly bloat the base > system -- portsnap + bsdiff weigh in at a combined 54kB -- I think it > is a sufficiently useful tool to justify inclusion. -- /\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ || Olaf Wagner | wagner(at)luthien.in-berlin.de (priv.)| || Cranachstrasse 7 | wagner(at)elego.de (business) | || D-12157 Berlin | phone: +49 30 85 60 26 70 | || Germany / Deutschland | fax: +49 30 85 58 01 88 | \/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504070644.j376imwB027984>