svn and/or portsnap

Polytropon freebsd at
Sun Sep 9 11:39:33 UTC 2012

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Helmut Schneider wrote:
> Polytropon wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:37:03 +0000 (UTC), Helmut Schneider wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I'm running a custom kernel so I (guess I) need svn in future to
> > > fetch sources instead of cvsup. Should I still use portsnap then
> > > for ports or also fetch them via svn?
> > 
> > Ports and system sources are managed independently. You can
> > use whatever tool you want.
> The question should read: If I need to install svn anyway, is there an
> advantage of portsnap over svn to fetch ports.

As I said, it depends. If you don't update regularly (in
short time spans), portsnap might be faster than SVN (to
incorporate all the deltas). If you feel comfortable with
this approach, you can keep using it. I don't see a general
advantage here.

> > Note that portsnap might not deliver the most current ports tree
> > for a given point in time. For "short time deltas", CVS has often
> > proven to be the better tool, but of course portsnap has significant
> > advantages (e. g. faster for longer pauses between ports
> > tree updates, better integration with "make update" target).
> > Depending on your updating habits, choose the tool that
> > works best for you.
> Currently I'm updating ports and src twice a day so I will keep using
> svn for both.

Good choice, in that case you won't have any advantage using
portsnap as smaller amounts of deltas are no big deal when
using SVN (or traditional CVS).

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list