From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 13:12:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B331B412 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:12:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Received: from smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (smtp-sofia.digsys.bg [193.68.3.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B56B934 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dcave.digsys.bg (dcave.digsys.bg [192.92.129.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0PDC3uo085858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:12:05 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Message-ID: <510284A3.8030509@digsys.bg> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:12:03 +0200 From: Daniel Kalchev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130125 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <87mww00w89.fsf@Shanna.FStaals.net> <20130123153724.GA79995@e-Gitt.NET> <510007F4.20701@sentex.net> <1358960762-2331017.37282719.fr0NH5PFb026896@rs149.luxsci.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 13:12:17 -0000 On 23.01.13 21:09, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Isaac (.ike) Levy > wrote: > >> 1) License. Many of SVN's dependencies will never be available in the FreeBSD source. >> While this is totally OK for development, SVN is 3rd party software, this is unacceptable to force as 'the' respected path for OS source builds. > Don't confuse the excessive ports default settings as dependencies. > You can make a quite mean and lean svn client. I did a 100% > BSD-license-compatible src/contrib/svn style proof-of-concept back > when we were planning what to do. Things like gdbm and bdb are not > required and are license contamination that we don't need. But that's > the fault of the port, not a fundamental property of using svn. > The logical question is then: Why is this slimmed down, fully BSD license compatible svn not in the base system by now? It is absurd to require the installation of any port, if your only intention is to update the base system sources. Portsnap is an entirely different mess. Daniel