svn - but smaller?

Ian Smith smithi at
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> 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.

cheers, Ian

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list