On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:08:21 +0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:29, Ian Smith <smi...@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. cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
