Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:44:42 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Message-ID: <20000212194442.B43572@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <00021221204202.02429@nomad.dataplex.net>; from rkw@dataplex.net on Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:19PM -0600 References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <20000212161556.D51878@shale.csir.co.za> <20000212184249.D42371@dragon.nuxi.com> <00021221204202.02429@nomad.dataplex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:19PM -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > It doesn't. ar files are binary, binary files cannot be put into our CVS > > archive. Instead we would have to uuencode them. > > They don't have to be! You could just as well use `shar`. It is > isomorphic and not encoded. Get real, the last thing I'm going to do when maintaining ports is to have to shar them up before checking in a change. > I don't think I'm alone. Others have complained about the working size of the > ports collection in terms of both inodes and bytes. I haven't heard anyone else pop up and join your bandwagon in this approach. It is known the inode pressure is large and last month we already discussed ways of dealing with that. IDE disks are now $0.08/gig so I don't see the big deal in bytes usage compared to making commiters and people that submit patches lives harder. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000212194442.B43572>