On 26 November 2012 21:15, jb <jb.1234a...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
While we're on the binary vs SVN topic, I'd like to point out I'm *actually running out of inodes* on a virtualized machine (we use these a lot for our dev and preproduction environments) with 5gb of space, when checking out the ports tree. Of course 5gb is quite small but then, this was installed a while back. The transition to SVN means I'm going to have to reinstall these firewalls. There are a lot of them it's going to be a major pain. idk, I'm loathe to use portsnap, I liked CSup just fine. _______________________________________________ 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"
