Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:27:15 -0500
From:      Greg Larkin <>
To:        Damien Fleuriot <>
Cc:        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
Hash: SHA1

On 11/27/12 4:36 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> 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.

Unless you plan to use svn commands other than checkout in your ports
tree, I would suggest switching to "svn export" or perhaps the
svn-export script ( to
fetch your ports tree.

The export command will not create the .svn metadata directory and
will save on inode usage.  Of course, you could also create a new
virtual disk for /usr/ports and tune it with more inodes if you'd
rather use svn checkout.

Hope that helps,

- -- 
Greg Larkin           - The Power To Serve     - Ready. Set. Code.      - Follow you, follow me
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined -


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