Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:48:45 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cperciva@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system Message-ID: <42F63B6D.3080909@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> > Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> writes: > : I've been told by a committer that there hasn't been enough > : discussion about the merits of adding portsnap to the base > : system. > : > : The basic summary, for anyone who didn't read yesterday's > : thread, is that portsnap is a secure, easy to use, fast, > : low-bandwidth, and lightweight way to keep the ports tree > : up to date. It is currently used by about 2000 systems each > : week (based on my server logs; and increasing at a rate of > : about 50% per month). The feedback I've had from users has > : been universally glowing, aside from the complaints that it > : really should be in the base system already. > : > : Portsnap is not a complete replacement for CVSup -- it only > : handles ports, and it only handles the tree, not the repo -- > : but it is very good at doing the job it is designed for. > : > : Discuss. > > I'm confused. Earlier in this thread it looked like someone said it > distributed binaries. Now this seems to indicate it is just cvsup in > checkout mode. Which is it? And when posting questions like this, it > is usually good to include pointers to documentation (although the > diff below does contain the man pages). > > : Unless I hear any complaints, I'm going to commit the following > : patch tomorrow: > : http://www.daemonology.net/tmp/portsnap-base.diff > > Is there some reason you've reinvated fetch as well? What does > phttpget do that fetch(1) or fetch(3) doesn't? The only thing that > looks like it might is pipelining mode, which would be better in the > base fetch program, imho. > > neither make_index nor phttpget have man pages. > > What does this buy you over cvsup/cvsupd? > > Warner I'll save Colin from repeating the answer to this for the millionth time. 1. security 2. much lower bandwidth 3. why are you quibbling over a feature that is 40k, has already been well tested, and has the support and desires of users? If you're really concerned about confusion and duplication, I see plenty of much more worthy opportunities in the pccard/cardbus, natm/patm/hatm, etc spaces. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F63B6D.3080909>