From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 26 02:52:53 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7060516A417 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 117BF13C45D for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:52:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 18028 invoked by uid 399); 26 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <474A2EC1.8080003@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:26:09 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edwin Groothuis References: <4747A1FB.9000707@FreeBSD.org> <4747E337.7060400@FreeBSD.org> <20071125213339.GB57513@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20071125213339.GB57513@k7.mavetju> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre Subject: Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:52:53 -0000 Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote: >> Doug Barton wrote: >>> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed >>> up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more >>> useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file >>> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? >> And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the >> default/recommended method today. > > That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P > > But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed > cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would happen: 1. The drive that the ports tree is on would be reformatted, therefore the new one could be installed, or 2. The drive would not be reformatted, therefore the old (and presumably already functional) ports tree would still be there. Maybe I'm missing something though? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection