Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:04:52 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> References: <42F5BC19.5040602@freebsd.org> <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> <20050807.231125.26489231.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
> Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > cp> Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > cp> > So, I would like the server-side bits to be imported if portsnap will
> > cp> > be in the base system.
> > cp>
> > cp> By "server-side", do you mean
> > cp> a) The code which builds the portsnap files,
> > cp> b) The code which mirrors them, or
> > cp> c) The web server (Apache) which actually sits on port 80 and
> > cp> communicates with the portsnap client?
> >
> > a) and b).
>
> Those don't belong in src, but I could put them into the projects repo
> if people really want them.
Not that I am going to do any such thing, but why prevent people from
providing their own binaries? Maybe they want to distribute their own
ports tree to an internal cluster using portsnap, or keep local
modifications to FreeBSD and distribute those using FreeBSD Update.
Having just the client in the system feels kind of weird to me.
Note that adding the server to base seems like overkill to me but in
ports or in projects would do fine in such cases I guess.
--Stijn
--
"Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is
no wiser, but an intelligent man requires only two thousand five
hundred."
-- The Mahabharata.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807160452.GF70957>