Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:02:11 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: hrs@freebsd.org Cc: dougb@freebsd.org, cperciva@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807.100211.20316746.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20050807.153425.21897310.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F5BC19.5040602@freebsd.org> <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org>
Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> writes:
: So, I would like the server-side bits to be imported if portsnap will
: be in the base system.
I wouldn't dream of having a local system without a cvsup mirror
daemon running on it, even if I don't let others use it. I suspect
that as disk gets cheaper, doing the same for the ports snapshots
might be viable. People used to complain about how much disk space
the cvs tree took up, but with 400G drives, those complaints are gone.
However, one possible gotcha in setting this up is licensing. Do you
know that your distribution of binary snapshot complies with the GPL
which requires that you also provide the sources when you do this?
The project already has some issues with GPLd ports when it builds
binaries. Are distfiles part of portsnap? If so, then you are safe
for the standard licenses...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807.100211.20316746.imp>