Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 17:27:10 +0300 From: Henri Reinikainen <henrixd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl Subject: Re: ports tree Message-ID: <CADfhKMJ1c2GbccwpKYb%2Bat5uxmdZTA784yyA3XAoBjCv0mdxaA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205261546360.70207@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <CADfhKMJvDzc_V_nhTBrOT%2BQRVCPRyGAffD7n52G5oq2oUc3ZgA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205261546360.70207@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Wojciech Puchar < wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) >> partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for >> systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run >> over and over to this problem. >> > > read only or read write? > public read write isn't smart. > I was thinking unionfs kind of temporary layer which keeps physical content separated. Only write changes to memory file system or so.. session end will throw everything into bits heaven (/dev/null). :) > > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session >> based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to >> make && make install directly from mounted partition. >> > > man mount_unionfs > > This was good to know. > > > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy >> of ports tree then. >> >> So, is this just stupid? >> > > no. > Is there such environment variables that can be pointed to writeable partition? That sources download and compiles on different partition. Then there is no bandwidth problem since only Makefile kind of files get readed from the server. Well, maybe this idea wont fly. I'm going to buy new hd anyways. :) Thanks anyways!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADfhKMJ1c2GbccwpKYb%2Bat5uxmdZTA784yyA3XAoBjCv0mdxaA>