Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:11:53 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Ulrich Spoerlein <q@uni.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists? Message-ID: <20050122111153.557ff8da@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20050122090430.GA850@galgenberg.net> References: <20050121205202.4092fc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050122090430.GA850@galgenberg.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:04:31 +0100
Ulrich Spoerlein <q@uni.de> wrote:
> Of course I like static plists too (because of grepping), but I am
> concerned about the CVS churn those massive changes will cause. If
> everyone is fine with massive pkg-plist diffs and the associated load on
> CVS and CVSup servers then go ahead, as I said, for me, size is no
> problem and storage is cheap.
Does someone know how often this happens for the large plists we have?
What's the ratio of the size with and without taking the plists into
account for ... lets say a weekly and a daily cvsup/portsnap run?
BTW.: today we have modems which are a lot faster than in the past days.
And AFAIK nobody complained about the time required to update the ports
collection (yes, the collection is larger now) in those days. We don't
have that much ports with a very large plist, and major updates to them
don't happen very frequently. I expect the release-tagging of the ports
collection to be more expensive.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The computer revolution is over. The computers won.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050122111153.557ff8da>