Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:36:33 +0100
From:      Damien Fleuriot <>
To:        jb <>
Subject:   Re: When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <05eafe033134e0771d54dec2d9388c8f@homey.local> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 26 November 2012 21:15, jb <> wrote:
> 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.
> jb

While we're on the binary vs SVN topic, I'd like to point out I'm
*actually running out of inodes* on a virtualized machine (we use
these a lot for our dev and preproduction environments) with 5gb of
space, when checking out the ports tree.

Of course 5gb is quite small but then, this was installed a while back.

The transition to SVN means I'm going to have to reinstall these firewalls.
There are a lot of them it's going to be a major pain.

idk, I'm loathe to use portsnap, I liked CSup just fine.

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