Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 10:54:57 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com> To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970407105455.00fbc100@dimaga.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:13 PM 4/7/97 +1000, Darren Reed wrote: >> And configuring CVSup is _simple_ and _painless_ and it is the >> greatest joy of any software I have ever met in regard to source >> tracking. > >Why do I need CVSup ? What if I don't want to allow CVS through my >firewall (or sup for that matter) ? (at this point, CVSup implies >maintaining a CVS tree as well as a src tree to compile from). CVS support the use of socks5, so if you maintain the firewall yourself it should be possible... >Sure, CVS might be superior to using diffs, BUT, big BUT here, using CVS >will require TWICE the space to store the source. Eh? If you want the entire CVS-repository, it will require 10 times the amount. If you use CVSup to just update the sources in place, it will require 4 MB extra, including the CVSup executable. >Maybe I bought FreeBSD 2.2 on CD-ROM, I want to upgrade to 2.2.1. >Alternatives currently are: >* buy the new CD when it becomes available >* download all the binaries >* download all the source >* setup cvsup > >IMHP, this is not exactly "user friendly". 2.2 on CD-ROM is actually 2.2.1 - that part of the problem gone. CVSup is simple to setup - to copy my setup, create a subdirectory /usr/CVSup, and copy the following file in there: ----- Cut here for /usr/CVSup/supfile.cvsup ---------- ports-all release=cvs host=cvsup.no.freebsd.org base=/usr/CVSup hostbase=/home prefix=/usr delete old use-rel-suffix tag=. src-all release=cvs host=cvsup.no.freebsd.org base=/usr/CVSup hostbase=/home prefix=/usr delete old use-rel-suffix tag=RELENG_2_2 ----- Cut here for /usr/CVSup/supfile.cvsup ---------- Run (cd /usr/CVSup; cvsup supfile.cvsup) to update your source tree to 2.2-STABLE, and your ports tree to -current. No big deal. However, if you don't consider this user-friendly - what would you have us provide? 2.2.1 isn't really interesting - if you're going to update, you want to update to the latest point along the -stable tree. Eivind Eklund perhaps@yes.no http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/ eivind@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970407105455.00fbc100>