svn - but smaller?
smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Wed Mar 13 15:21:10 UTC 2013
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:08:21 +0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:29, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
Damien, please permit me to trim to the point you responded to:
> > As we have portsnap, which updates INDEX-* and checks integrity, I'm not
> > sure that using svnup for ports is worthwhile considering. It would
> > save (here) 135MB in var/db/portsnap, but that's pretty light in view of
> > the 700MB-odd of /usr/ports/.svn in the ports distributed with 9.1-R
> I beg to differ, if I can only use the tool to upgrade my base
> sources but not the ports, thus still needing vanilla SVN, then I for
> one won't have any use for said tool whatsoever.
> Just my take on it.
> I'm totally not into portsnap.
Allow me to rephrase that: I'm not sure that using svnup for ports is
worthwhile considering as an option for me, here :) I'm happy using
portsnap, not having had any problem with it .. but to each their own!
For one thing, I'm still getting ~13 minute svnup runs, even using -v0
(silent), to update once 5 and later 1 file in stable/9, whereas running
portsnap fetch && portsnap update totalled ~50 seconds for 5 new ports
and 82 patches. Has anyone tried svnup with -b ports/base yet?
It seems that you could use svnup to download any part of the repository
that the server will let you have. I used '-b base/stable/9' but could
apparently? get base/head or base/releng/4.11 - or ports/head, doc/head
or perhaps even csrg for a 4.4BSD snapshot! - any corrections welcome.
More information about the freebsd-stable