Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:15:10 -0500 From: Michael Johnson <buhnux@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does everybody switch to dynamic plists? Message-ID: <7FB87551-6C5E-11D9-AFED-000A95BB7150@ahze.net> In-Reply-To: <20050122111153.557ff8da@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <20050121205202.4092fc5a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20050122090430.GA850@galgenberg.net> <20050122111153.557ff8da@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 22, 2005, at 5:11 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:04:31 +0100 > Ulrich Spoerlein <q@uni.de> wrote: > >> Of course I like static plists too (because of grepping), but I am >> concerned about the CVS churn those massive changes will cause. If >> everyone is fine with massive pkg-plist diffs and the associated load >> on >> CVS and CVSup servers then go ahead, as I said, for me, size is no >> problem and storage is cheap. > > Does someone know how often this happens for the large plists we have? > What's the ratio of the size with and without taking the plists into > account for ... lets say a weekly and a daily cvsup/portsnap run? And even still there is always the "*default compress" line for cvsup which helps a good bit. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFB8ievn4uqfTwEb9YRAuYrAJ9NPDf+61/GAsGrE9hdIg78UHRPbQCgtHAu efgjd377zLlACubbHE8qNLc= =GzIZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7FB87551-6C5E-11D9-AFED-000A95BB7150>