Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:49:53 +0100 From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM Message-ID: <8462.829061393@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Apr 1996 03:06:37 PDT." <199604091006.DAA16409@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi Asami wrote in message ID <199604091006.DAA16409@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>: > * From my own perspective, with my puny link to the net, the multiple > * collections approach is far superior. > > But the ports collection is soooo small! As I remember, the whole > ports tree (minus distfiles) was about 10MB. This is smaller than > src/gnu/usr.bin/cc! (If you have such a `puny' link and can't even > stand that, why are you supping -current? ;) Speaking as someone who used to sup the ports collection across a 14k4 modem with a 50-70% packet loss link to freebsd.org, I can tell you why ... the actual ports data is only a fraction of the battle, the rest comes when sup tries to re-timestamp all the directories in the collection. As it's the CVS tree ... *UGH* (If you hadn't realised, the process of running an `update' on the tree updates the timestamps, or used to at least). So pulling over data was okay, but waiting for sup to go through each directory one at a time, and getting some response from the server (which, over half the time never got here and had to be retransmitted) was a right ROYAL PAIN. I'm MORE than glad to actually have the disk space now to get the cvs tree by CTM. For those that are not so lucky, I'd REALLY like to see the separate ports collections stay. Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8462.829061393>