Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists?
buhnux at gmail.com
Sat Jan 22 02:15:18 PST 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jan 22, 2005, at 5:11 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:04:31 +0100
> Ulrich Spoerlein <q at uni.de> wrote:
>> Of course I like static plists too (because of grepping), but I am
>> concerned about the CVS churn those massive changes will cause. If
>> everyone is fine with massive pkg-plist diffs and the associated load
>> CVS and CVSup servers then go ahead, as I said, for me, size is no
>> problem and storage is cheap.
> Does someone know how often this happens for the large plists we have?
> What's the ratio of the size with and without taking the plists into
> account for ... lets say a weekly and a daily cvsup/portsnap run?
And even still there is always the "*default compress" line for cvsup
which helps a good bit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-ports