Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:06:39 +0100 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MITM attacks against portsnap and freebsd-update Message-ID: <CAFHbX1JwqR2mGDtruo5r2XHTxw2JDeC64fMYKRtH3syggWNUaw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <534932A8.6040801@gmx.com> References: <CAHAXwYCGkP-o0VvMXj5S8-KNA45aTvy%2BsrjDL_=8-x9Dza5z5Q@mail.gmail.com> <534932A8.6040801@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:33 PM, <dt71@gmx.com> wrote: > Subversion, due to its scheme of keeping an uncompressed copy of each file > in .svn trees, wastes ~410MiB of disk space (for ports; additionally, > ~820MiB for src) for users who only want to build ports from source, not > develop; whereas Portsnap wastes only ~140MiB. > > Subversion is more of a resource strain on both clients and servers. Different people want different things. I would prefer to see a tool in base, eg freebsd-update, taught how to use both methods. This would allow the user to choose whether they want versioned files - in which case freebsd-update would use svnlite from base, and the user accepts that it will be slow and use a little more space - or if they want just the up to date files with no metadata, in which case "portsnap" mode can be used. I put "portsnap" in quotes there, because it seems like there are some issues to solve there. In a non license constrained world, the problem of "how do I replicate these files from here to there" is universally solved by rsync. Would a freebsd-update tool that required the rsync port/package to be installed in order to operate in "portsnap" mode be that bad, especially with svnlite (or even use fetch to grab a snapshot) to fall back on? Cheers Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFHbX1JwqR2mGDtruo5r2XHTxw2JDeC64fMYKRtH3syggWNUaw>