Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:11:31 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F632B3.90704@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <42F5BC19.5040602@freebsd.org> <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> <20050807.231125.26489231.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stijn Hoop wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: >>Those don't belong in src, but I could put them into the projects repo >>if people really want them. > > Not that I am going to do any such thing, but why prevent people from > providing their own binaries? Maybe they want to distribute their own > ports tree to an internal cluster using portsnap Two reasons come to mind: First, the portsnap chain of security starts with running cvsup to cvsup-master through a tunnel to freefall... a non-committer wouldn't be able to do that. Second, it would be far more efficient for this hypothetical user to keep their modifications as a local set of patches which were applied post-portsnap on individual machines. In any event, those are fairly irrelevant: I'm not going to prevent people from running their own portsnap builds, and if someone wants the code they can have it. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F632B3.90704>