From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jan 9 05:14:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id FAA08850 for current-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 05:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA08839 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 05:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [199.183.109.242] by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Tue, 9 Jan 1996 07:14:27 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 07:14:09 -0600 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Syncing CTM and SNAPS? Cc: current@freebsd.org, phk@freebsd.org Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> If you make a SNAP based on any ctm source, then it is unnecessary to >> distribute the source distributions as a part of the SNAP. In fact, this >> idea could be extended to the regular release distributions. > >Well, there's the `subdivision problem' you yourself mention. I'm wondering if we should subdivide the CTM distributions. If we did that, I see no reason that the source distribution files could not be in CTM format rather than their current compressed form. >All the >nice menus for picking-and-chosing in the src tree would go away. See above. >One more item labeled `CTM Base Delta' >won't hurt! I'd assume that there could be a symlink on the ftp >site (wherever that might be?) always pointing to the most recent >base delta? You gain little for the user if you do not provide the mechanism to get both a base and the update thereafter. If he has to ftp to get some past updates, he might as well get the base at the same time. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net