When Is The Ports Tree Going To Be Updated?

[Damien Fleuriot]

On 26 November 2012 21:15, jb <jb.1234abcd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <tundra <at> tundraware.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> One wonders if using svn to keep the ports tree up-to-date might not be
>> simpler, and perhaps, more reliable ...
>
> As managed by portsnap:
> $ du -hs /usr/ports/
> 850M    /usr/ports/
>
> As managed by svn (it took much longer to checkout/download it by comparison):
> $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/
> 1.4G    /usr/local/ports/
> $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/.svn/
> 702M    /usr/local/ports/.svn/
>
> One thing about svn is that it is a developer's tool, with its own commands
> set (that should never be mixed with UNIX commands w/r to dir/file
> manipulation), and that should not be expected to be learned by non-devs.
>
> For that reasons alone the portsnap-managed ports repo is more generic,
> flexible to be handled by user and add-on apps/utilities, looks like more
> efficient without that svn overhead resulting from its requirements and
> characteristics as a source control system.
>
> But, svn offers to a user a unique view into ports repo, e.g. history, logs,
> info, attributes, etc.
>
> jb
>

While we're on the binary vs SVN topic, I'd like to point out I'm
*actually running out of inodes* on a virtualized machine (we use
these a lot for our dev and preproduction environments) with 5gb of
space, when checking out the ports tree.

Of course 5gb is quite small but then, this was installed a while back.

The transition to SVN means I'm going to have to reinstall these firewalls.
There are a lot of them it's going to be a major pain.


idk, I'm loathe to use portsnap, I liked CSup just fine.