Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:37:25 +0100 From: Oliver Brandmueller <ob@e-Gitt.NET> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <20130123153724.GA79995@e-Gitt.NET> In-Reply-To: <87mww00w89.fsf@Shanna.FStaals.net> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <87mww00w89.fsf@Shanna.FStaals.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:12:22PM +0100, Frank Staals wrote: > This type of question has been asked quite a few times recently. At this > point there is no svn version of csup, however there were people working > on it (or at least: there is a svnsup project). For details please > search recent ports or questions mailing list archives. As far as I know > there is also no alternative svn-client. Pointer to svnsup is fine; it seems I just missed to the first hint. > I'm kind of surprised for the need of this though. Why not simply use > portsnap if you are not actively developing ports? Well, for ports this is mostly fine, though on several places I prefer to use csup (or svn now) even for ports, since I maintain quite a set of local patches - this sometimes gives problems together with potsnap. Where this is neede, I have a shared ports tree anyway, so the whole svn setup is only needed in one machine. But my main concern is the system sources anyway. freebsd-update is not feasible for me, as described in the original post. Thank you, Oliver -- | Oliver Brandmueller http://sysadm.in/ ob@sysadm.in | | Ich bin das Internet. Sowahr ich Gott helfe. |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130123153724.GA79995>