Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:41:41 -0500 From: "Isaac (.ike) Levy" <ike@blackskyresearch.net> To: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <1358973727-4656511.96619194.fr0NKfgPf025068@rs149.luxsci.com> In-Reply-To: <20130123201734.be0f9e715289c29e1b03c393@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130123201734.be0f9e715289c29e1b03c393@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > Oliver Brandmueller <ob@e-Gitt.NET> wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> in ancient times there was cvsup. cvsup was a PITA if you wanted (or=20= >> needed) to install it via ports, the only reasonable way was to use=20= >> pkg_add for that if you didn't want to pollute your system with=20 >> otherwise unneeded software. >>=20 >> Then there came csup. Small, in the base. You could install FreeBSD >> and the first task (for me and my environment) was often to simply >> csup to -STABLE (or a known good version of that) and to build an >> up-to-date and customised system. Like tayloring make.conf and >> src.conf to my needs and leave out most of the stuff I don't need on >> my system and in the kernel. Software and drivers that aren't there >> can't fail and won't be a security problem. >>=20 >> Times have been changing, we're now up to svn. svn is far more modern=20= >> than cvs and there are pretty good reasons to use it. >>=20 >> However, I either overlook something important or we are now at the=20= >> point we had with cvsup in the early days: The software I need to=20 >> (source-)update the system doens't come with the base and installing >> svn is a PITA. It pulls in a whole lot of dependencies, at the time >> being in FBSD-9.1-R I cannot even pkg_add -r subversion out of the >> box. And in the end I have my system polluted with software and >> libraries I don't really need in many cases for anything else. >>=20 >> So, is there some alternative small svn client, that leaves a=20 >> drastically smaller footprint probably somewhere around, probably >> even in the ports or is there anything I'm missing? The current >> situaion for me is a bit annoying. =46rom the user's or admin's point >> of view at least. I didn't even see an option in svn to not build the >> server components, which would probably already help to make things >> smaller? >>=20 >> Thanx, >> Oliver On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Isaac (.ike) Levy > <ike@blackskyresearch.net> wrote: >=20 >> 1) License. Many of SVN's dependencies will never be available in = the FreeBSD source. >> While this is totally OK for development, SVN is 3rd party software, = this is unacceptable to force as 'the' respected path for OS source = builds. >=20 > Don't confuse the excessive ports default settings as dependencies. > You can make a quite mean and lean svn client. I did a 100% > BSD-license-compatible src/contrib/svn style proof-of-concept back > when we were planning what to do. Things like gdbm and bdb are not > required and are license contamination that we don't need. But that's > the fault of the port, not a fundamental property of using svn. On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > devel/subversion already has an option to build a static version. A > solution could be to create a stub port (devel/subversion-static) > similar to: >=20 > shells/bash-devel > shells/bash-static-devel >=20 > dns/ldns > dns/py-ldns >=20 > That way the package build cluster would create a package of the = static > version which wouldn't pull in any runtime dependencies. >=20 > Emanuel Peter, this work sounds great, and sounds like it would make a great = stub port itself! I'd love to see whatever you have remaining from the proof-of-concept = work, to perhaps help expand it into 'devel/subversion-lite' or = 'devel/subversion-static' ? I'd happily use it for development. -- However, SVN for development use is not what the point, this thread is = about using, administrating, and maintaining FreeBSD systems- not about = development process. And in that case, SVN is still a fairly massive = toolset for the simple task of fetching REL, STABLE, or CURRENT: Source for SVN-alone: 55M Source for FreeBSD 9.1: 746M That's still over 7% of the size of the entire OS. I believe it's not at all necessary to have anything except the base = FreeBSD OS, to update/install FreeBSD. -- A NYC*BUG list user posted this reminder, we've been here before: > Deja-vu=85 This reminds me of cvsup+modula-3. >=20 > = http://www.mavetju.org/mail/view_message.php?list=3Dfreebsd-current&id=3D2= 09027 I'll keep hacking on our shell utility, and will post the PR to this = thread. Best, .ike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1358973727-4656511.96619194.fr0NKfgPf025068>