From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 26 08:58:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BB51065672 for ; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:58:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mueller23@insightbb.com) Received: from mail.insightbb.com (smtp.insight.synacor.com [208.47.185.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2798FC12 for ; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:58:47 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=kol2auSkmlqV0r4kL7/YmMwsenhHO5EF6+5SE0y3xX4= c=1 sm=0 a=jLN7EqiLvroA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=7blUbMKY6g5oYZ64WFoA:9 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=Q/oqmR4JO1zR3vNQamCQeQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com smtp.mail=mueller23@insightbb.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com header.from=mueller23@insightbb.com; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (smtp01.insight.synacor.com: transitional domain insightbb.com does not designate 74.134.26.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.134.26.53] ([74.134.26.53:37417] helo=localhost) by mail.insightbb.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.40 r(29895/29896)) with ESMTP id 8C/7E-17253-04B90CF4; Sat, 26 May 2012 04:58:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 04:58:40 -0400 Message-ID: <8C.7E.17253.04B90CF4@smtp01.insight.synacor.com> From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Henri Reinikainen Subject: Re: ports tree X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 08:58:47 -0000 from Henri Reinikainen : > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) > partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for > systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run > over and over to this problem. > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session > based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to > make && make install directly from mounted partition. > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy > of ports tree then. > So, is this just stupid? What happens if the port a remote user is trying to build and install is updated in the middle of this remote activity? Users of ports tree then must deal with a moving target. Files from two different versions might get mixed together. I think maybe this thread should go to ports@freebsd.org list? Tom