svn - but smaller?
markiyan.kushnir at gmail.com
Thu Apr 11 17:42:43 UTC 2013
I agree with Ian, there is no need to statically link to base libraries.
While not going into details of the patch, I can confirm no issues,
except of known ones, of course: ports/177777, ports/177408.
Another thing that might be worth of attention, the patched version has
been again back to slower checkout time:
at 4 Mbit/s link, while the original 0.56 takes ~55min given the same
On 11.04.2013 16:03, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, mrboco at gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:57:12 AM UTC+6, Markiyan Kushnir wrote:
> > > Tested svnup for a while, and I can say it does its job well, and works
> > > basically as I would expect, so thanks for your initiative. Although it
> > > appears to be quite resource greedy. Most of the time it showed
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
> > > 22270 mkushnir 1 102 0 44944K 31804K CPU0 1 6:22 97.56% a.out
> > It's because of typo in the send_command() procedure.
> > I've placed the patched svnup.c (0.56), the diff and two statically
> > linked binaries on http://ftp.ufanet.ru/pub/boco/freebsd/svnup/
> > No more CPU eating and/or strange lockups (so far). Tested both
> > against local and remote repository.
> I'm sorry, but even ignoring all of your whitespace and style(9)
> differences, your patch appears to go well beyond correcting a typo,
> which I can't spot anyway, though I'm sure John will know what it is.
> Care to explain a little more?
> Also, what advantage, in this particular case, is there in statically
> linking? Here it turns a 21.5K i386 binary into one of 575K. If this
> makes it into base, as I hope it may, that seems a little excessive?
> cheers, Ian
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-stable