Deprecation of portsnap (was: Proposed ports git transition schedule)

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2021-Apr-01 12:19:08 +0200, Felix Palmen <felix at palmen-it.de> wrote:
>* Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt at burggraben.net> [20210326 19:45]:
>> ## Felix Palmen (felix at palmen-it.de):
>> 
>> > I'd assume (someone may correct me) that portsnap will still be
>> > supported,
>> 
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-August/119098.html
>
>Is this finally decided, and is there a timeline? Right now, it seems
>portsnap is still built by default on releng/13.0.

Following the SVN to GIT migration, portsnap is now the only practical
way to use ports on a low-memory system.  I've done some experiments
and standard git has a 2GB working set to checkout a ports tree.
gitup reached a 5GB working set size before I gave up.  Typical small
VPSs are around the 1GB RAM size and moving to something that can
support 2GB or 5GB processes is a big price jump.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20210411/3bf47508/attachment.sig>