Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:00:38 +1100 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release Message-ID: <20071126030038.GC57513@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <474A2EC1.8080003@FreeBSD.org> References: <4747A1FB.9000707@FreeBSD.org> <4747E337.7060400@FreeBSD.org> <20071125213339.GB57513@k7.mavetju> <474A2EC1.8080003@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:09PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote: > >> Doug Barton wrote: > >>> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed > >>> up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more > >>> useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file > >>> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? > >> And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the > >> default/recommended method today. > > > > That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P > > > > But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed > > cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. > > Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would > happen: Oh wait. The cvsup checkouts file is probably a small (set of) file(s) with some revision information, while the portsnap file is a huge chunk of data with a copy of the ports tree. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071126030038.GC57513>