Re: -R for make update ?
Wilko Bulte wrote: Hi Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source? Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in pserver mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your local copy, or over NFS. If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the lock, no problem. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: -R for make update ?
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:00:31AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source? Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in pserver mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your local copy, or over NFS. If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the lock, no problem. It will also be freakishly slow, and use massive amounts of temp space. Kris PGP signature
Re: -R for make update ?
Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source? Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in pserver mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your local copy, or over NFS. If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the lock, no problem. It will also be freakishly slow, and use massive amounts of temp space. No slower than cvs using rsh/ssh, although it does tend to create alot of inodes in /tmp. (It doesn't create alot of temp space, other than what is used to create the directories...) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: -R for make update ?
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source? Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in pserver mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your local copy, or over NFS. If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the lock, no problem. It will also be freakishly slow, and use massive amounts of temp space. No slower than cvs using rsh/ssh, although it does tend to create alot of inodes in /tmp. (It doesn't create alot of temp space, other than what is used to create the directories...) Yes, using rsh/ssh is also slow, but we were talking about *local* access, which has none of those drawbacks. -R makes cvs operations go quite a bit faster, and AFAIK is perfectly safe if you're using a private repo for which you know there will be no contention. Kris PGP signature
-R for make update ?
Hi
Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the
CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source?
The Makefile.inc1 has:
.if defined(CVS_UPDATE)
@echo
--
@echo Updating ${.CURDIR} from cvs repository ${CVSROOT}
@echo
--
cd ${.CURDIR}; cvs -q update -A -P -d
.endif
In other words, would adding '-R' hurt?
Wilko
[who hopes he did not miss the obvious]
--
| / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlandsemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /( (_) BultePowered by FreeBSD/alpha http://www.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: -R for make update ?
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:48:28PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
Hi
Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock to the
CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked out source?
The Makefile.inc1 has:
.if defined(CVS_UPDATE)
@echo
--
@echo Updating ${.CURDIR} from cvs repository ${CVSROOT}
@echo
--
cd ${.CURDIR}; cvs -q update -A -P -d
.endif
In other words, would adding '-R' hurt?
I don't see why it should.
Joe
PGP signature
Re: -R for make update ?
In the last episode (May 21), Wilko Bulte said:
Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to write a lock
to the CVS repo when running 'make update' to get a freshly checked
out source?
The Makefile.inc1 has:
.if defined(CVS_UPDATE)
cd ${.CURDIR}; cvs -q update -A -P -d
.endif
In other words, would adding '-R' hurt?
If you are accessing a local CVS repo that you have updated via cvsup,
no. But if you are accessing something on freefall directly, I think
you need the locking just in case someone is committing at the same
time.
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
