25mb vs 300mb ports

[Peter Leftwich]

I gave the FreeBSD online Handbook a good read (of several chapters
that walked the reader through sysinstall)...  One of the prompts
said to have 300mb or more of space for the ports.

At the FreeBSD.Org ports website, however, it says the total size of
the tarball (tar/gzip) is 25mb.  Is this a matter of compressed
versus uncompressed?  Why the discrepancy?

By the way, thank you to the many erudite and friendly faces who
responded to my lament -- I am happy to see a lot of devices now
supported under 5.2.1!!

--
Peter Leftwich, President  Founder
Video2Video Services
Box 13692, La Jolla, CA, 92039, USA
http://Www.Video2Video.Com



___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 25mb vs 300mb ports

[Kevin Stevens]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Peter Leftwich wrote:

 At the FreeBSD.Org ports website, however, it says the total size of
 the tarball (tar/gzip) is 25mb.  Is this a matter of compressed
 versus uncompressed?  Why the discrepancy?

That's part of it, the other part is that the ports consist of a lot of
small files, so you have a significant block/directory size overhead as
well.

KeS
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]