From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 08:17:05 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432F87A3 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:17:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from takeda@takeda.tk) Received: from chinatsu.takeda.tk (mail.takeda.tk [74.0.89.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EEA65A for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:17:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.takeda.tk (takeda-ws2.lan [10.0.0.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by chinatsu.takeda.tk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0P8GvRM005384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:16:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from takeda@takeda.tk) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:13:59 -0800 From: Derek Kulinski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1406837249.20130125001359@takeda.tk> To: "Sergey V. Dyatko" Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? In-Reply-To: <20130125090958.2700cc5b@laptop> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130124093846.5e683474@laptop> <0c1603f1-a6af-4511-b230-8b791df7f9d7@email.android.com> <20130125090958.2700cc5b@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at chinatsu.takeda.tk X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:17:05 -0000 Hello Sergey, Thursday, January 24, 2013, 10:09:58 PM, you wrote: >> I think you don't understand the reason why people are asking for >> this. I personally experienced the need not long ago. I had stable/9 >> branch and wanted to downgrade to 9.0. The entire process went well >> until I rebooted the system, to see tons of errors in pretty much >> everything that was compiled from ports. Instead recompiling them >> from scratch I just decided to go ahead and upgrade to 9.1 which was >> not officially released yet. > how in this case you would have helped availability lite-svn-client on > base ? The base worked fine, the ports were completely broken. And even if it was somehow broken (perhaps buildworld did not correctly built it) if it was part of the base it would not depend on any external ports. >> And of course I could not perform svn sw because svn was broken too. > r232944 | lev | 2009-04-29 15:11:17 +0300 > ... > (3) Add STATIC option to build only static binaries [2] > ... While that would not apply to my case (switch within major version), what about ABI incompatibilities? >> And since svn has tons of dependencies it took me nearly an hour to >> recompile them (portupgrade and Ruby were broken too). > that's why I don't use portupgrade for a long time;-) > use portmaster WTF Other than that it works very well, but I will give portmaster a try. -- Best regards, Derek mailto:takeda@takeda.tk Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage.