Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 11:02:55 -0700 From: "Edward Sanford Sutton, III" <mirror176@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap Message-ID: <DM6PR03MB3674858F382BA85ABE5F5D51E6D70@DM6PR03MB3674.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <b5ac89e8-43a1-43c1-bcc1-5a31540bf5cc@MW2NAM10FT007.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com> References: <20201226124150.7c494410@dismail.de> <6d0d128b-9a75-34f4-830c-d8be05ded9cb@freebsd.org> <20201226140417.04225f3e@dismail.de> <42752466-048A-4F37-929E-8CDC5189E8E2@punkt.de> <b5ac89e8-43a1-43c1-bcc1-5a31540bf5cc@MW2NAM10FT007.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/28/20 6:06 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> Kudos to Stefan for keeping portmaster relevant and up-to-date. >> But I never understood the appeal of portsnap. What's the advantage over > >> svnlite co ... >> cd /usr/ports; make update > >> This mechanism is in the base system, so an extra tool demands some >> justification ;-) portsnap was much faster for small updates and slower for big updates last I tested it though I've heard it was the exact opposite for other's experiences. I found svn always had a certain overhead to run through my tree to make sure it was in sync where portsnap just said, "yup, snapshot up to date/needs these few changes" much quicker than my system could even walk a ports tree. Once months of changes are there I would have been better off with a fresh fetch effort I presume but doing the usual update was SLOW. If you want to just have a ports tree and have no intention of modifying it, tracking said changes, and/or submitting those patches back, or if you want to have the most up to date copy of the ports tree, download a copy from a specific changeset or moment in time, or if you want to downgrade certain ports then I think portsnap has always been the wrong choice. >> Kind regards, >> Patrick > >> punkt.de GmbH >> Patrick M. Hausen > > Better yet, I built the full subversion from FreeBSD ports and NetBSD pkgsrc so am able to use from either FreeBSD or NetBSD. > > But the useful days of svnlite or svn with FreeBSD with ports tree seem to end with the migration to git scheduled for the end of next March; already ended for FreeBSD doc and current src trees. portsnap didn't have an upload and svn won't disappear from read only view anytime soon; legacy FreeBSD support doesn't want that dying off until their versions last using it die off too. > I guess svnlite will be dropped from FreeBSD when it will no longer be usable. > > Any way portsnap can be updated to deal with a git repository? portsnap doesn't deal with a svn repository but uses its own effort to track changes if I recall. I didn't think the reason for going away was svn vs git. portsnap is a shell script where fetch is used for downloads. > I switched from portsnap to subversion following FreeBSD's switch from csup to subversion for security reasons in summer 2012 (to the best of my memory). > > I figured if I needed subversion to update src and doc trees, may as well also use it with ports tree: one-stop shopping. > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DM6PR03MB3674858F382BA85ABE5F5D51E6D70>