On 9 Sep 2012 00:11, "Jeffrey Bouquet" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > --- On Sat, 9/8/12, Kevin Oberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Kevin Oberman <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] Announcing the end of port CVS > > To: "Jamie Paul Griffin" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, September 8, 2012, 2:42 PM > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Jamie > > Paul Griffin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > [ Lars Eighner wrote on Fri 7.Sep'12 at 10:00:45 > > -0500 ] > > > > > >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Beat Gaetzi wrote: > > >> > > >> >The development of FreeBSD ports is done in > > Subversion nowadays. > > >> >For the sake of compatibility a Subversion to > > CVS exporter is > > >> >in place which has some limitations. For CVSup > > mirroring cvsup > > >> >based on Ezm3 is used which breaks regularly > > especially on amd64 > > >> >and with Clang and becomes more and more > > unmaintainable. > > >> > > >> > > >> What exactly is the motivation again for moving > > from things which work like > > >> cvsup and gcc to things that are broken or lame > > like subversion and clang? > > > > > > They're not broken. I've recently been using them and > > they're fine. > > > There has been plenty of discussion about the reasons > > for the changes so > > > have a read from the various sites and list archives. > > > > Looks like a troll to me. No one who has worked with > > subversion for a > > project of any size would ever want to go back to CVS. While > > still > > having some of CVS's limitations, it does far, far more and > > is much > > easier to work with for most things. I really miss the > > forced commit > > and, for one application, RANCiD, I use CVS so I can grep > > through the > > ,v files easily. But I can't see any reason for FreeBSD not > > to move > > the the more advanced system. > > > > As to clang, there is no choice there. The license on newer > > version of > > gcc (GPLv3) is simply not acceptable to the community, so > > gcc is stuck > > forever at 4.2 which is getting very old. clang has > > excellent > > development support, an acceptable license, and early tests > > show that > > it generally compiles faster and MAY even generate better, > > faster > > code. > > -- > > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > > E-mail: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] > > mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > > > > I'd not go so far as to label it trolling.... > ... > I searched quite a bit upon this announcement to find csup > svn equivalent guides and found little applying to ports... > hopefully they will appear prior to the changeover?, something > easily learned? > > .... > (disregarding portsnap for the moment, and I apologize...) > .... > (the .htm I saved from the web searches (svn) appear too complex and > irrelevant to this use case to be of use here...)
For end users portsnap has been a better solution for a long time; it's faster and also secure; the snapshots are signed. Perhaps you should give it a try, sine you correctly point out that Subversion is a pain to install. Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
