svn - but smaller?

[Chris Rees]

On 23 Jan 2013 15:37, "Oliver Brandmueller" <ob at e-gitt.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:12:22PM +0100, Frank Staals wrote:
> > This type of question has been asked quite a few times recently. At this
> > point there is no svn version of csup, however there were people working
> > on it (or at least: there is a svnsup project). For details please
> > search recent ports or questions mailing list archives. As far as I know
> > there is also no alternative svn-client.
>
> Pointer to svnsup is fine; it seems I just missed to the first hint.
>
> > I'm kind of surprised for the need of this though. Why not simply use
> > portsnap if you are not actively developing ports?
>
> Well, for ports this is mostly fine, though on several places I prefer
> to use csup (or svn now) even for ports, since I maintain quite a set of
> local patches - this sometimes gives problems together with potsnap.
> Where this is neede, I have a shared ports tree anyway, so the whole svn
> setup is only needed in one machine.
>
> But my main concern is the system sources anyway. freebsd-update is not
> feasible for me, as described in the original post.

The single binaries inside the archives at [1] may help you out.  I built
them fairly recently, so they should be up to date (ish), and they should
be fine on 9+.  Just untar and use.

Chris

[1] http://www.bayofrum.net/svn-static/