Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 19:03:08 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap Message-ID: <8c80377f4189acabd5e5c31ef853d92c@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <b920d0e6-72d3-b37c-e57e-6d027292e8db@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:43:20 -0400 Steve Wills swills@FreeBSD=2Eorg said > We are planning to deprecate use of portsnap in ports=2E >=20 =2E=2E=2E Makes sense to me=2E Thank you=2E :-) >=20 > * Portsnap doesn't seem to save disk space compared to svn or git, if=20 > you count the metadata (stored in /var/db/portsnap by default) and you=20 > do an apples-to-apples comparison of svn or git without history and=20 > ignoring possible ZFS compression=2E That is, you use "svn export" or git= =20 > "clone --depth 1", you see this disk usage: >=20 > 342M svnexport > 426M git > 477M portsnap >=20 > * Portsnap also doesn't work offline which git does=2E With git, you can=20 > also easily add the history by running "git pull --unshallow" >=20 > * This migration away from portsnap fits well with the planned migration= =20 > to git=2E >=20 Please tell me that this doesn't mean a [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of subversion is on the horizon=2E --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8c80377f4189acabd5e5c31ef853d92c>