Tim Daneliuk <tundra <at> tundraware.com> writes: > ... > One wonders if using svn to keep the ports tree up-to-date might not be > simpler, and perhaps, more reliable ...
As managed by portsnap: $ du -hs /usr/ports/ 850M /usr/ports/ As managed by svn (it took much longer to checkout/download it by comparison): $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/ 1.4G /usr/local/ports/ $ du -hs /usr/local/ports/.svn/ 702M /usr/local/ports/.svn/ One thing about svn is that it is a developer's tool, with its own commands set (that should never be mixed with UNIX commands w/r to dir/file manipulation), and that should not be expected to be learned by non-devs. For that reasons alone the portsnap-managed ports repo is more generic, flexible to be handled by user and add-on apps/utilities, looks like more efficient without that svn overhead resulting from its requirements and characteristics as a source control system. But, svn offers to a user a unique view into ports repo, e.g. history, logs, info, attributes, etc. jb _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
