Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:16:58 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: 'Jeremy Chadwick' <jdc@koitsu.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dewayne <dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <1477843233.20130124131658@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <20130124085717.GA26673@icarus.home.lan> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130124093846.5e683474@laptop> <E10EBB96DCC143BE8F14FD2982AD84B7@white> <20130124085717.GA26673@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, 'Jeremy. You wrote 24 =D1=8F=D0=BD=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=8F 2013 =D0=B3., 12:57:17: JC> to install Subversion. If you want to pull down ports/ you can use JC> portsnap and waste lots of /var space, hoping that the portsnap mirrors JC> are up to date, and a bunch of other hullabaloo... In case of csup, you relies that the cvs mirrors are up to date. And what about /var space... svn spends much more space in /usr/ports itself (.svn directory) than portsnap does (now my /var/db/portsnap directory is 95MiB, and .svn for ports will be comparable with size of ports itself!). I personally (maintainer of subversion port!) prefer csup over all other methods for "non-developers" systems too, and I'll be happy to see "svnup" when (if?) it will be created... --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1477843233.20130124131658>