From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Apr  9 08:21:32 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA18181
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA18166
          Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	  by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-1) with SMTP id PAA08464
	  ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:49:53 +0100 (BST)
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Apr 1996 03:06:37 PDT."
             <199604091006.DAA16409@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <8462.829061393@palmer.demon.co.uk>
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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