Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:42:49 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> To: Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@osx.kode5.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] Announcing the end of port CVS Message-ID: <CAN6yY1vFadjHcrmRirYe-R0TgO6dbA1MWqU6MrDF5b8bNP1FzQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120908100908.GA13193@osx.kode5.net> References: <5049EA50.4040001@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209070958550.1692@abbf.ynefrvtuareubzr.pbz> <20120908100908.GA13193@osx.kode5.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@osx.kode5.net> wrote: > [ Lars Eighner wrote on Fri 7.Sep'12 at 10:00:45 -0500 ] > >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Beat Gaetzi wrote: >> >> >The development of FreeBSD ports is done in Subversion nowadays. >> >For the sake of compatibility a Subversion to CVS exporter is >> >in place which has some limitations. For CVSup mirroring cvsup >> >based on Ezm3 is used which breaks regularly especially on amd64 >> >and with Clang and becomes more and more unmaintainable. >> >> >> What exactly is the motivation again for moving from things which work like >> cvsup and gcc to things that are broken or lame like subversion and clang? > > They're not broken. I've recently been using them and they're fine. > There has been plenty of discussion about the reasons for the changes so > have a read from the various sites and list archives. Looks like a troll to me. No one who has worked with subversion for a project of any size would ever want to go back to CVS. While still having some of CVS's limitations, it does far, far more and is much easier to work with for most things. I really miss the forced commit and, for one application, RANCiD, I use CVS so I can grep through the ,v files easily. But I can't see any reason for FreeBSD not to move the the more advanced system. As to clang, there is no choice there. The license on newer version of gcc (GPLv3) is simply not acceptable to the community, so gcc is stuck forever at 4.2 which is getting very old. clang has excellent development support, an acceptable license, and early tests show that it generally compiles faster and MAY even generate better, faster code. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1vFadjHcrmRirYe-R0TgO6dbA1MWqU6MrDF5b8bNP1FzQ>