Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:35:46 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> Cc: jdc@koitsu.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <20130126033546.GA85346@johnny.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20130124104553.GA69019@anubis.morrow.me.uk> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130124093846.5e683474@laptop> <E10EBB96DCC143BE8F14FD2982AD84B7@white> <20130124093503.GA87735@anubis.morrow.me.uk> <20130124104553.GA69019@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:45:53AM +0000, Ben Morrow wrote: > At 9AM +0000 on 24/01/13 you (Ben Morrow) wrote: > > Quoth 'Jeremy Chadwick' <jdc@koitsu.org>: > > > > > > Regarding your "svn-lite" theory of having that added to src/contrib/, > > > let me introduce you to Subversion's actual dependencies, and I'll > > > explain why these would have to remain enabled (for a "base system" > > > Subversion) as well: > <snip> > > > * APR (used for HTTP fetching (not necessarily HTTPS)) > > > -- License: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > > > -- Not in the base system > > > > > > * Expat 2.x (XML parsing/generation library > > > -- License: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > > -- Not in the base system > > Correction: expat is in base already, as libbsdxml (rather confusingly > built under lib/libexpat). > > So AFAICS the only remaining piece is APR (and svn itself), and I > suspect that if only the bits required for a svn client were brought in > (assuming the licence is deemed acceptable) that would be a lot smaller > than a full APR build. (Again, this would need to be built as libbsdapr > to avoid conflicts with real APR from ports.) If APR is only used for HTTP fetching, I wonder how hard it would be to replace those pieces with fetch(3), which is in base, or wrap fetch(3) in an APR-compatability shim? (Some work required, obviously.) No, I'm not volunteering: svn from ports works OK for me, and I'm in the process of investigating freebsd-update+portsnap to keep the source trees up to date... Took me a while to notice that freebsd-update can be told to *not* update executables and what-not, but I haven't tried it myself. Call me a massochist, but I like that my FreeBSD system is running code built from the source that's there... Part of FreeBSD's charm, in my opinion. Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130126033546.GA85346>