On Sat, 2006-May-13 22:37:01 -0500, Joseph Kerian wrote:
>The resemblance is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Is there anything
>preventing someone from making a portupgrade-like tool that uses only tmp, a
>/ports dir on an ftp site and a bit of intelligence regarding dependency
>resolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing any technical
>reasons this couldn't be done. (okay... so your equivelent of portversion
>might get a little more complicated or potentially wierd)

The biggest problem I see is keeping just your local ports subset
up-to-date (so when you do a 'make foo', you can be sure that all the
dependencies - including ports/Mk are up to date).  CVSup and CTM are
not designed to do this (though CVS can mostly manage it) so the
portupgrade-like tool would need to manage this itself.

>I would submit, however, that it hasn't been done simply because it isn't
>needed. 210 mb is laughably insignificant on any system I would build ports.

As a CVS checkout (in a 16k/2k filesystem), my ports tree is nearly
500MB and 190,000 inodes.  Without the CVS metadata, it's 327MB and
just over 100K inodes.  The size is fairly irrelevant (especially in
the face of ports that need 2-4GB to build) but the 100K-200K inodes
is non-trivial.

Peter Jeremy
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to