Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:16:31 -0600
From:      Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu>
To:        <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Request for comments - svnup in base ?
Message-ID:  <54BBF87F.5080003@my.hennepintech.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20150119024349.T82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References:  <mailman.61.1421582401.23573.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20150119024349.T82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 2015.01.18 11:45, Ian Smith wrote:
> svnlite only arrived with 10.1, so is not what 8.x and 9.x users need.
10.0, not 10.1. I am a bit surprised that it wasn't backported to 9.3, though.

> It doesn't appear as an available port for 9.3.  Its manpage is useless, 
> an s/svn/svnlite/g job on svn(1), neither of which instruct in usage at 
> all, referring to a site that, nowhere that I could find, even mentions 
> svnlite and friends.  Developer friendly, casual user hostile at best.
The svn(1) man page isn't very useful either. However, I do agree that the
documentation could be a lot better at explaining what svnlite is and how it
differs from normal svn.

> So just how 'lite' is svnlite?  Could someone running 10.1+ please 
> replace svnup with svnlite in equivalents to the following queries:
> 
> smithi@x200:~ % ll `which svnup`
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  47040 Jan 19 01:26 /usr/local/bin/svnup
[candace ~]# ls -l $(which svnlite)
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  3210464 Jan  3 22:26 /usr/bin/svnlite

> smithi@x200:~ % ldd `which svnup`
> /usr/local/bin/svnup:
>         libmd.so.5 => /lib/libmd.so.5 (0x800824000)
>         libssl.so.6 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.6 (0x800a34000)
>         libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x800c8a000)
>         libcrypto.so.6 => /lib/libcrypto.so.6 (0x800fe5000)
[candace ~]# ldd $(which svnlite)
/usr/bin/svnlite:
        libbsdxml.so.4 => /lib/libbsdxml.so.4 (0x800b29000)
        libz.so.6 => /lib/libz.so.6 (0x800d50000)
        libcrypt.so.5 => /lib/libcrypt.so.5 (0x800f66000)
        libmagic.so.4 => /usr/lib/libmagic.so.4 (0x801186000)
        libcrypto.so.7 => /lib/libcrypto.so.7 (0x8013a4000)
        libssl.so.7 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.7 (0x801798000)
        libthr.so.3 => /lib/libthr.so.3 (0x801a03000)
        libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x801c28000)

> 
> smithi@x200:~ % ll /lib/libmd.so.5 /usr/lib/libssl.so.6 /lib/libc.so.7 /lib/libcrypto.so.6
> -r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  1407536 Jun 25  2014 /lib/libc.so.7
> -r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  1748528 Jun 25  2014 /lib/libcrypto.so.6
> -r--r--r--  1 root  wheel    69072 Jun 25  2014 /lib/libmd.so.5
> -r--r--r--  1 root  wheel   355576 Jun 25  2014 /usr/lib/libssl.so.6
[candace ~]# ls -l /lib/libbsdxml.so.4 /lib/libz.so.6 /lib/libcrypt.so.5
/usr/lib/libmagic.so.4 /lib/libcrypto.so.7 /usr/lib/libssl.so.7
/lib/libthr.so.3 /lib/libc.so.7
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel   161760 Jan  3 22:25 /lib/libbsdxml.so.4
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  1647720 Jan  3 22:25 /lib/libc.so.7
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel    62008 Jan  3 22:25 /lib/libcrypt.so.5
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel  2038496 Jan  3 22:26 /lib/libcrypto.so.7
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel   106120 Jan  3 22:25 /lib/libthr.so.3
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel    89576 Jan  3 22:25 /lib/libz.so.6
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel   123976 Jan  3 22:25 /usr/lib/libmagic.so.4
-r--r--r--  1 root  wheel   439776 Jan  3 22:26 /usr/lib/libssl.so.7

> 
> smithi@x200:~ % du -hd0 /usr/src
> 830M    /usr/src
> smithi@x200:~ % du -hd0 /usr/ports
> 1.6G    /usr/ports
[candace ~]# du -hd0 /usr/src
783M    /usr/src

and FWIW:
[candace ~]# du -sh /usr/src/.svn
398M    /usr/src/.svn

This is a two-week-old checkout of 10-STABLE (from which the aforementioned
binaries were built).
I don't have a ports tree from SVN (both trees I use for poudriere are using
portsnap at the moment).

I'm not sure any of the above matters too much, but I might do a speed
comparison of svn, svnup, and svnlite, which I think will be the most important
for most people if they are indeed that much different from each other in that
regard.
On a side note, backticks are bad and you shouldn't use them. :P

> Bottom line: I don't think plugging to get svnup into base is worth 
> pursuing.  Few developers took any interest that I noticed, it was 
> largely tested by users.  John Mehr has been very responsive to any 
> issues.  To one to whom C is mostly read-only, it reads very well.
> 
> I think it's ok as a port .. perhaps a small section in the Handbook?
A mention in the handbook would definitely be good.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54BBF87F.5080003>