Idea about the ports tree included in the release

[Edwin Groothuis]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:09PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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:

Oh wait. The cvsup checkouts file is probably a small (set of)
file(s) with some revision information, while the portsnap file is
a huge chunk of data with a copy of the ports tree.

Edwin

-- 
Edwin Groothuis      |            Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
edwin at mavetju.org    |              Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/