Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 06:56:10 -0800 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), ports@freebsd.org, gibbs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM Message-ID: <199604041456.GAA01309@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Apr 1996 02:39:01 PST." <6270.828614341@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> * I'm running one right now for a `ports-all' collection and will see
>> * how it looks. If it runs less than 10 minutes and doesn't show up as
>> * the #1 culprit in top, I'll probably let it live.
>>
>> Well I don't know when you started it but it just finished. The final
>> size was 1294KB. I'd say that's a go, it's smaller than most of the
>> sendmails! :)
>
>I agree, especially if we remove all the small collections which
>result in some 30 different supscans being run and can hardly be
>optimal either.
>
>Anyone object to the idea of ports-{foo,bar,...} going away and being
>replaced by one ports-all? Does anyone here even sup a partial
>ports tree? I know that I never have..
If you're behind a 14.4 link, its quite nice to have them separated
in case you decide to kill your SUP or disconnect. You have to re-update
every file that was touched during your last SUP again if you kill it.
It also gives you more choice in what you pull over to your machine.
Supscans are very light tasks and they don't live for very long. I don't
see the win in getting rid of the smaller collections, but you can very
easily create a collection that subsumes all the others by using the
"include" keyword. Read the SUP man page for details.
> Jordan
--
Justin T. Gibbs
===========================================
FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations
===========================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604041456.GAA01309>