Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:34:09 +1100 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Integration of ports and 3rd party anoncvs repositories? Message-ID: <20001221103408.A76507@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There are some large and fairly rapidly evolving code bases out there at the moment. They aren't part of the base FreeBSD distribution, but are frequently installed via the ports collection: XFree86, Wine, mozilla, kde and gnome, probably openoffice soon. All of these are available through incremental means: anoncvs, CVSup, or inter-tarball diffs. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the current Ports facility is based on the notion of operating from distribution tarballs that wind up in /usr/ports/distfiles, one way or another. Some of these tarballs are now really big, which (for those of us who pay for our bandwidth by the megabyte) is a disincentive for staying current. I've managed to track Wine for a while by building my own tarballs incrementally, with the deltas. I'm just about to have a go at grabbing XFree86-4.0.2 by CVSup. Has anyone been thinking of tweaking the ports "extract" target to copy from a local copy of the original repository, rather than going straight for a tarball file? How could we standardise access to source repositories from different vendors, so that the ports makefiles could determine if they were present automagically? Would it be best to go for full local CVS repositories, and have the "extract" target do a cvs co, or could we get by with local "checked-out" trees? (I haven't really used CVS myself yet: I follow FreeBSD-stable with CVSup in "check out" mode.) -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001221103408.A76507>