From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Dec 15 14:22:30 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740EBC813E7 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:22:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26F241271 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:22:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id uBFEMLBw066200 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:22:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id uBFEMLfL066197; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:22:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:22:21 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Daniil Berendeev cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.1 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:22:21 -0700 (MST) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:22:30 -0000 On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Daniil Berendeev wrote: > 5) svn repository. > I don't want to spark a holy war and I don't belong to those type of > people who are always obsessed that something isn't done in their way. > But guys, svn is not a good tool for ports. Just for one reason, > actually (as for me, I could tolerate anything else, but not this one) > -- size. The size of repository is 20G+ and growing. I don't want to > pull 20G+ in /usr/ports just because I need to use ports. It's just > sick. The repository is so big because, as all ya know, svn is expensive > in branch operations. Since you've began to do those 2xxxQx branches the > size of the repository began to grow rapidly. It's inefficient and > uncomfortable. For such a work something like git or mercurial should be > used, they'd fit in 3-4G. Here, it doesn't look like that. Don't forget that /usr/ports/distfiles accumulates old versions and must be manually cleaned out from time to time. portmaster has a couple of options to remove distfiles that are not needed. % du -hd0 /usr/ports 8.1G /usr/ports % du -hd0 /usr/ports/distfiles 6.5G /usr/ports/distfiles After copying that to /tmp and deleting distfiles entirely: % du -hd0 /tmp/usr/ports 1.4G /tmp/usr/ports Deleting /usr/ports/distfiles entirely is something I avoid because it seems that just when an urgent rebuild is needed, a distfile will be unfetchable. The portmaster options can keep distfiles only for currently installed ports, or current distfiles for any port, whether installed or not.