Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:11:31 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F632B3.90704@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <42F5BC19.5040602@freebsd.org> <20050807.211240.75793221.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> <20050807.231125.26489231.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Stijn Hoop wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: >>Those don't belong in src, but I could put them into the projects repo >>if people really want them. > > Not that I am going to do any such thing, but why prevent people from > providing their own binaries? Maybe they want to distribute their own > ports tree to an internal cluster using portsnap Two reasons come to mind: First, the portsnap chain of security starts with running cvsup to cvsup-master through a tunnel to freefall... a non-committer wouldn't be able to do that. Second, it would be far more efficient for this hypothetical user to keep their modifications as a local set of patches which were applied post-portsnap on individual machines. In any event, those are fairly irrelevant: I'm not going to prevent people from running their own portsnap builds, and if someone wants the code they can have it. Colin Percivalhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F632B3.90704>