On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:52+0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> Speaking of 9.2, are there any plans for a 8.4 ?
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=248213
--
+---++
| Vennlig hilsen, | Best regards,
On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:47, "Michael Ross" wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:57:25 +0100, Giorgos Keramidas
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:25:22 -0500, Fbsd8 wrote:
>>> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>>
>> No.
>
> I'd like to reference a thread on the @sta
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:57:25 +0100, Giorgos Keramidas
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:25:22 -0500, Fbsd8 wrote:
Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
No.
I'd like to reference a thread on the @stable list here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-s
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Giorgos Keramidas
wrote:
> Having svn-X.0 in the source tree, imported at great expense of time and
> effort, will provide exactly _zero_ benefits if the underlying format of
> the repository changes (like subversion likes doing really often).
>
I agree with your o
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:39:50 -0400, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
>> Fbsd8 wrote:
>>
>>> No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If
>>> it can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the
>>> base system.
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
Fbsd8 wrote:
No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If it
can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the base
system.
Giorgos did when he said "Subversion is a large system, w
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
Fbsd8 wrote:
> No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If it
> can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the base
> system.
Giorgos did when he said "Subversion is a large system, with a ton
of dependenci
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2013-03-09 22:04, Robert Huff wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas writes:
> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
No.
[good reasons for not including subversion ellided]
On the other hand ...
The traditional - and I believe still canonical - way
On 2013-03-09 22:04, Robert Huff wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas writes:
> > > Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
> >
> > No.
>
> [good reasons for not including subversion ellided]
>
> On the other hand ...
>
> The traditional - and I believe still canonical - way of
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>
not sure about svn, but this port has recently been commited:
http://www.freshports.org/net/svnup/
it is a csup replacement.
-pete
--
pete wright
www.nycbug.org
@nomadlogicLA
_
Giorgos Keramidas writes:
> > Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>
> No.
[good reasons for not including subversion ellided]
On the other hand ...
The traditional - and I believe still canonical - way of
updating the system is to recompile
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:25:22 -0500, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
No.
Subversion is a large system, with a ton of dependencies, and there's
basically _nothing_ to gain by having to spend extra effort trying to
keep an imported version up to date.
Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
Is the new pkg system going to totally replace the pkg_ system in the
base 9.2-Release?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
13 matches
Mail list logo
