Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:26:09 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release Message-ID: <474A2EC1.8080003@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20071125213339.GB57513@k7.mavetju> References: <4747A1FB.9000707@FreeBSD.org> <4747E337.7060400@FreeBSD.org> <20071125213339.GB57513@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote:
>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
>>> up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
>>> useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
>>> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location?
>> And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the
>> default/recommended method today.
>
> That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P
>
> But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed
> cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images.
Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would
happen:
1. The drive that the ports tree is on would be reformatted, therefore
the new one could be installed, or
2. The drive would not be reformatted, therefore the old (and
presumably already functional) ports tree would still be there.
Maybe I'm missing something though?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?474A2EC1.8080003>