Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:05:29PM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework but also ported to other, mostly (quasi-)Unix OSes including even FreeBSD. To correct a misapprehension: although many years ago pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports shared common ancestry, it is not fair to say that pkgsrc is their version. pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports have different goals, and to that purpose, pkgsrc has been through multiple major rewrites and no longer even vaguely resembles FreeBSD ports. As well, the FreeBSD ports infrastructure has evolved substantially. IIUC pkgsrc's major goal is to run on as many OSes as possible, and to that end has to do a tremendous amount of work to evade those limitations. We don't have that problem, nor the bootstraping problems that are associated. I'm sure there are many other places where we have diverged. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:05:29PM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework but also ported to other, mostly (quasi-)Unix OSes including even FreeBSD. Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com responded: To correct a misapprehension: although many years ago pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports shared common ancestry, it is not fair to say that pkgsrc is their version. pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports have different goals, and to that purpose, pkgsrc has been through multiple major rewrites and no longer even vaguely resembles FreeBSD ports. As well, the FreeBSD ports infrastructure has evolved substantially. IIUC pkgsrc's major goal is to run on as many OSes as possible, and to that end has to do a tremendous amount of work to evade those limitations. We don't have that problem, nor the bootstraping problems that are associated. I'm sure there are many other places where we have diverged. mcl pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework in that it plays the same role in NetBSD, even if the infrastructures have greatly diverged. Nothing like buildlink3.mk in FreeBSD ports. But I see partial resemblances in the directory structures of pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports framework. Most of the base system of *BSD would be packages in Linux. This poses great difficulty porting a BSD package-management system to Linux, as pkgsrc has tried to do. What to do with coreutils, util-linux, udev and now systemd? Tom ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 06:54:19PM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:05:29PM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework but also ported to other, mostly (quasi-)Unix OSes including even FreeBSD. Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com responded: To correct a misapprehension: although many years ago pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports shared common ancestry, it is not fair to say that pkgsrc is their version. pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports have different goals, and to that purpose, pkgsrc has been through multiple major rewrites and no longer even vaguely resembles FreeBSD ports. As well, the FreeBSD ports infrastructure has evolved substantially. IIUC pkgsrc's major goal is to run on as many OSes as possible, and to that end has to do a tremendous amount of work to evade those limitations. We don't have that problem, nor the bootstraping problems that are associated. I'm sure there are many other places where we have diverged. mcl pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework in that it plays the same role in NetBSD, even if the infrastructures have greatly diverged. Nothing like buildlink3.mk in FreeBSD ports. But I see partial resemblances in the directory structures of pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports framework. Most of the base system of *BSD would be packages in Linux. This poses great difficulty porting a BSD package-management system to Linux, as pkgsrc has tried to do. What to do with coreutils, util-linux, udev and now systemd? WFC -- - (2^(N-1)) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 05:30:11PM +, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Will it be possible to use subversion directly? -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 08:59:08PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 05:30:11PM +, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Will it be possible to use subversion directly? Yes, absolutely, there will be a means to do checkouts over http, just as we have available for src and docs, unfortunately, I do not have the details available to me at this moment. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe pgpcjfok5Oy9G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On 07/08/2012 17:21, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: there will be a means to do checkouts over http Anonymous users can also use the svn protocol. -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On 07/08/2012 17:21, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: there will be a means to do checkouts over http Doug Barton responded: Anonymous users can also use the svn protocol. Does that mean svn will be brought into the base system as cvs, csup and portsnap already are? (I hope so) Currently I use portsnap for the ports tree and csup for base-system source and doc (/usr/src and /usr/doc). I believe cvs is still the primary checkout and update method with NetBSD for base-system source and pkgsrc. Pkgsrc is NetBSD's version of FreeBSD ports framework but also ported to other, mostly (quasi-)Unix OSes including even FreeBSD. I am not prepared to advise for or against using NetBSD pkgsrc with FreeBSD, but the possibility is there; I haven't tried it (yet). I am also not sufficiently familiar with the internals of cvs and svn to say which is better and why (or git or mercurial for that matter). Tom ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On 07/08/2012 20:05, Thomas Mueller wrote: On 07/08/2012 17:21, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: there will be a means to do checkouts over http Doug Barton responded: Anonymous users can also use the svn protocol. Does that mean svn will be brought into the base system as cvs, csup and portsnap already are? No, and neither should it be. There is nothing unique to any FreeBSD branch in svn, so it doesn't need to be in the base. Currently I use portsnap for the ports tree and csup for base-system source and doc (/usr/src and /usr/doc). FYI, csup is faster than portsnap for medium to large amounts of changes (and proportionally faster the older your tree), and with the -s option, which it's safe to use routinely if you don't mess with the files) its also faster than portsnap for small changes. , I am also not sufficiently familiar with the internals of cvs and svn to say which is better and why For users who only are checking sources out, they are comparable. If you're making local changes svn is probably faster, but not enough to make a large difference. Where the benefits of svn come into play are primarily for committers. Although, if we can get buy-in from the PTB to allow projects branches in ports svn then testing things like the new X11 could be as simple as one command to update your main tree, and then one more to merge in the code to test. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
Hi list.
It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make
update command.
I wish to had this in ports makefile:
--- /usr/ports/Makefile 2012-06-07 09:26:08.983664775 +0300
+++ /tmp/Makefile 2012-06-28 15:25:03.0 +0300
@@ -153,6 +153,7 @@
CVS?= cvs
SUP?= csup
+GIT?= git
PORTSNAP?= portsnap
PORTSNAP_FLAGS?= -p ${.CURDIR}
.if defined(SUPHOST)
@@ -170,6 +171,15 @@
@echo Updating ${.CURDIR} from cvs repository ${CVSROOT}
@echo --
cd ${.CURDIR}; ${CVS} -R -q update -A -P -d -I!
+.elif defined(GIT_UPDATE)
+ @echo --
+ @echo Updating ${.CURDIR} from GIT+SVN repository ${CVSROOT}
+ @echo --
+.if !exists(${PORTSDIR}/.git)
+ cd ${.CURDIR}; ${GIT} svn rebase
+.else
+ ${GIT} svn clone -$(svn log -q --limit 1 $SVN_ROOT | awk '/^r/{print
$1}') $SVN_ROOT
+.endif
.else
@echo --
@echo Running ${PORTSNAP}
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 17:30 +, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The
anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact
for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter.
Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless
c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your
needs.
Beat and Thomas
on behalf of portmgr@
http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On 28 June 2012 05:33, mbsd m...@isgroup.com.ua wrote: Hi list. It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make update command. I wish to had this in ports makefile: Submit a PR with this patch so portmgr will look at it. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
Ok. I'll be submitting a pr when ports move to svn. Without testing, this patch is not more than dirty code. On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 07:55 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: On 28 June 2012 05:33, mbsd m...@isgroup.com.ua wrote: Hi list. It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make update command. I wish to had this in ports makefile: Submit a PR with this patch so portmgr will look at it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:11:30PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jason Helfman jhelf...@e-e.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:47:34PM -0700, Kevin Oberman thus spake: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Abthorpe tabtho...@freebsd.org wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Beat and Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/ While portsnap has several advantages over csup, it is unusable in my case because I have always maintained local mods to ports in the ports tree and portsnap neatly removes them. I may move to using svn to maintain my own copy of the tree and update the working directory where I can keep my customizations. You may want to look at the manpage for portsnap.conf and see how advantageous it may be to use the REFUSE option. That an excellent idea. I was thinking that, since I keep my private patches in the files directory and let the normal 'make patch' apply them, that it would still delete them, but careful reading of the man page implies that I could list these file (paths) as REFUSED and portsnap would leave them alone. I'll experiment and see of this works. If so, I can move away from csup. In any event it may be more resourcful just to go to SVN as the advantages of that cannot be taken if something like portsnap or csup is used. Updating Diffing Committing Stating Reverting I am sure the list of 'ing goes on and on. -- - (2^(N-1)) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:45:20PM +0300, mbsd wrote: Ok. I'll be submitting a pr when ports move to svn. Without testing, this patch is not more than dirty code. On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 07:55 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: On 28 June 2012 05:33, mbsd m...@isgroup.com.ua wrote: Hi list. It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make update command. I wish to had this in ports makefile: Submit a PR with this patch so portmgr will look at it. How do you propose it should define a OOB repo ? since there is no official ... repo for git. Yes I know! there are some out there. But thats not to say they should be supported in tree until one has at least been announced as official and can be pointed to and has shown to be kept just as up to date as the svn tree. JMO -- - (2^(N-1)) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/28/2012 7:25 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:45:20PM +0300, mbsd wrote: Ok. I'll be submitting a pr when ports move to svn. Without testing, this patch is not more than dirty code. On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 07:55 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: On 28 June 2012 05:33, mbsd m...@isgroup.com.ua wrote: Hi list. It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make update command. I wish to had this in ports makefile: Submit a PR with this patch so portmgr will look at it. How do you propose it should define a OOB repo ? since there is no official ... repo for git. Yes I know! there are some out there. But thats not to say they should be supported in tree until one has at least been announced as official and can be pointed to and has shown to be kept just as up to date as the svn tree. JMO The proposed patch is for git-svn. It checks out from the *official* SVN as a local git repository. It requires no git repository to be maintained by anyone but the person who checks it out. Regards, Bryan Drewery -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP7QTxAAoJEG54KsA8mwz50ZsP/jm6/hrboW3e4lzDAUVcF+yT fZ+5dv5Ra+AhyPDii255G7NrnB9jQsbK3F2oxGYBb3OpPvqYjgTxtTBbEYgSr6EJ z5TJGjNBLrr+kGAxu2/pWp1/yF1VFoHz6/8ScSl+yJyshGLUXI9B0S6GeivubJ0F SHq7HyPSjNGMlcLcw2UXGvbSIfargAw0VU+nQajoIvDx/C/VHaH8Gyp6rVkAcGv3 QrfWqjIGsLaqPxJrKRA0b1HoQPcJ/hqXPe+koANdMaHbombDyVpr9G2lzmpWUL4Y 1m6uDy6lboH+dkaaYxk9GFZ/c4xjialmfTfQoUVBW/au5huHbivFfZb0jSJ6IuLa WinVl5HyBIZ0XXiBNz/rofLj7QQQC/5HRiyjhsKHkmmD1ZwvwFAYjoPzXa/PoMF3 j/xaAv+hmLFirA0vGTUQlJpU8L3C9S+20Y7T1hUffGX0cgWe1voXtQL1p0kUo2Ug tTTWKiuNWay0M31v8UwpdyeUHloqcVahG7nlikH1kexgL4nr6xKaIX+TEWp/eoqg TaOBTiZPVXmVUC2u3WSIF1Ho30ofOd7zXRvsPnRY4vMef+PNAOqYjSUKH4u+rGP7 0qT+GdRV4ERturlYuPb3yswAP+aAJ5Gq7TOJg34JPGn3OndhFnZvxvEG1IjkSwjG gNuKArDfwVQdGzMZCXD2 =IpdS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
I have been using git svn rebase for src since src moved on git. I think new options SVN_UPDATE and probably GIT_UPDATE :) in make.conf are good idea. On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 20:29 -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/28/2012 7:25 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:45:20PM +0300, mbsd wrote: Ok. I'll be submitting a pr when ports move to svn. Without testing, this patch is not more than dirty code. On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 07:55 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: On 28 June 2012 05:33, mbsd m...@isgroup.com.ua wrote: Hi list. It will be wonderful. When src had moved to svn, nobody cared about make update command. I wish to had this in ports makefile: Submit a PR with this patch so portmgr will look at it. How do you propose it should define a OOB repo ? since there is no official ... repo for git. Yes I know! there are some out there. But thats not to say they should be supported in tree until one has at least been announced as official and can be pointed to and has shown to be kept just as up to date as the svn tree. JMO The proposed patch is for git-svn. It checks out from the *official* SVN as a local git repository. It requires no git repository to be maintained by anyone but the person who checks it out. Regards, Bryan Drewery -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP7QTxAAoJEG54KsA8mwz50ZsP/jm6/hrboW3e4lzDAUVcF+yT fZ+5dv5Ra+AhyPDii255G7NrnB9jQsbK3F2oxGYBb3OpPvqYjgTxtTBbEYgSr6EJ z5TJGjNBLrr+kGAxu2/pWp1/yF1VFoHz6/8ScSl+yJyshGLUXI9B0S6GeivubJ0F SHq7HyPSjNGMlcLcw2UXGvbSIfargAw0VU+nQajoIvDx/C/VHaH8Gyp6rVkAcGv3 QrfWqjIGsLaqPxJrKRA0b1HoQPcJ/hqXPe+koANdMaHbombDyVpr9G2lzmpWUL4Y 1m6uDy6lboH+dkaaYxk9GFZ/c4xjialmfTfQoUVBW/au5huHbivFfZb0jSJ6IuLa WinVl5HyBIZ0XXiBNz/rofLj7QQQC/5HRiyjhsKHkmmD1ZwvwFAYjoPzXa/PoMF3 j/xaAv+hmLFirA0vGTUQlJpU8L3C9S+20Y7T1hUffGX0cgWe1voXtQL1p0kUo2Ug tTTWKiuNWay0M31v8UwpdyeUHloqcVahG7nlikH1kexgL4nr6xKaIX+TEWp/eoqg TaOBTiZPVXmVUC2u3WSIF1Ho30ofOd7zXRvsPnRY4vMef+PNAOqYjSUKH4u+rGP7 0qT+GdRV4ERturlYuPb3yswAP+aAJ5Gq7TOJg34JPGn3OndhFnZvxvEG1IjkSwjG gNuKArDfwVQdGzMZCXD2 =IpdS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
[HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Beat and Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Abthorpe tabtho...@freebsd.org wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Beat and Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/ While portsnap has several advantages over csup, it is unusable in my case because I have always maintained local mods to ports in the ports tree and portsnap neatly removes them. I may move to using svn to maintain my own copy of the tree and update the working directory where I can keep my customizations. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:47:34PM -0700, Kevin Oberman thus spake: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Abthorpe tabtho...@freebsd.org wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Beat and Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/ While portsnap has several advantages over csup, it is unusable in my case because I have always maintained local mods to ports in the ports tree and portsnap neatly removes them. I may move to using svn to maintain my own copy of the tree and update the working directory where I can keep my customizations. You may want to look at the manpage for portsnap.conf and see how advantageous it may be to use the REFUSE option. -jgh -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jason Helfman jhelf...@e-e.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:47:34PM -0700, Kevin Oberman thus spake: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Abthorpe tabtho...@freebsd.org wrote: The FreeBSD ports tree will migrate from CVS to Subversion soon. The anticipated date for the migration is July 14th. This will have no impact for ports tree users as there will be a SVN to CVS exporter. Please note that cvsup will still work after the migration. Nevertheless c(v)sup is pretty dated so you may want to see if portsnap(8) will fit your needs. Beat and Thomas on behalf of portmgr@ http://blogs.freebsdish.org/portmgr/2012/06/27/ports-tree-migration-to-subversion/ While portsnap has several advantages over csup, it is unusable in my case because I have always maintained local mods to ports in the ports tree and portsnap neatly removes them. I may move to using svn to maintain my own copy of the tree and update the working directory where I can keep my customizations. You may want to look at the manpage for portsnap.conf and see how advantageous it may be to use the REFUSE option. That an excellent idea. I was thinking that, since I keep my private patches in the files directory and let the normal 'make patch' apply them, that it would still delete them, but careful reading of the man page implies that I could list these file (paths) as REFUSED and portsnap would leave them alone. I'll experiment and see of this works. If so, I can move away from csup. Thanks! -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
