svn - but smaller?

[Walter Hurry]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:09:58 +0300, Sergey V. Dyatko wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:06:47 -0800 Derek Kulinski <takeda at takeda.tk>
> wrote:
> 
>> "Sergey V. Dyatko" <sergey.dyatko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >You may:
>> >1/ install subversion on some host/jail 2/ do svn export ( f.e.
>> >svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/releng/9 stable_9)
>> >3/ tar it 4/ on 'client' fetch(1)/scp/rsync tarball
>> >
>> >in that case you don't need svn on 'client', fetch and scp in base :)
>> 
>> If you go through all of that why not just install the damn svn from
>> ports?
> 
> I have svn installed on all my boxes (for src and configs) ;-)
> 
> 
>> I think you don't understand the reason why people are asking for this.
>> I personally experienced the need not long ago. I had stable/9 branch
>> and wanted to downgrade to 9.0. The entire process went well until I
>> rebooted the system, to see tons of errors in pretty much everything
>> that was compiled from ports. Instead recompiling them from scratch I
>> just decided to go ahead and upgrade to 9.1 which was not officially
>> released yet.
>> 
> how in this case you would have helped availability lite-svn-client on
> base ?
> 
>> And of course I could not perform svn sw because svn was broken too.
> r232944 | lev | 2009-04-29 15:11:17 +0300 ...
> (3) Add STATIC option to build only static binaries [2]
> ...
> 
>> And since svn has tons of dependencies it took me nearly an hour to
>> recompile them (portupgrade and Ruby were broken too).
>> 
>> 
> that's why I don't use portupgrade for a long time;-)
> use portmaster WTF

Portupgrade works fine for me. What's the problem with it?