On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Kai Voigt wrote:
Hello,
I'm just doing a cvsup update of my system and -as many times before- I
realize that /usr/ports/ takes a lot of time and also disk space to sync.
# du -sk /usr/ports
71118 /usr/ports
Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact?
An even more radical approach, and more controversial, would
be to remove /usr/ports entirely and use the concept of source packages.
pkg_add -r aumix would install the binary, and something along the lines of:
pkg-source_add -r aumix would download the source, patches, and whatever else
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
An even more radical approach, and more controversial, would
be to remove /usr/ports entirely and use the concept of source packages.
pkg_add -r aumix would install the binary, and something along the lines of:
pkg-source_add -r aumix would
TAKE THIS TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
This is NOT a -current issue!! And the people that can actually effect
change hang out on [EMAIL PROTECTED], not necessarly on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 12:19:01PM -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
This is the direction that my
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
TAKE THIS TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
Agreed. This is where the depth of the discussion should take place.
This is NOT a -current issue!!
I beg to differ. Any significant change to the status-quo is a -current issue.
To adopt ANY SIGNIFICANT
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:58:14PM -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
TAKE THIS TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
Agreed. This is where the depth of the discussion should take place.
This is NOT a -current issue!!
I beg to differ. Any
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Leif Neland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just FYI, a cvsup of ports over a single ISDN-line took 22 min on a
soft-update'd disk.
Something is seriously wrong over there then, because I can update
my entire CVS
At 05:55 PM 2/10/00 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Sounds good, but again how will the CVSup file for ports and CVSup itself
:deal with this. Either a "refuse" file would need to be created and then
:populated or there would need to be other changes. Not sure Mr Wraith or
:the CVS maintainers
At 10:15 PM 2/10/00 -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jeffrey J. Mountin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the context of CVSup server connections it would not be. Have to
chuckle when I hear someone doing CVSup for ports-all. Unless they have a
reason, but as we know many
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
All I would propose is that those subdirectories do not need to be part
of the base distribution -- that typing 'make modulename' in the parent
directory (e.g. typing 'make ssh' in ports/security) would first
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
Something of this general idea exists in the portcheckout port.
If we were to have a stripped down skeleton of the ports, is it generally felt
that the INDEX contains enough information?
Or do we really need to have the DESCRiptions available for
:think of a number of trivial ways to handle the aggregate DESCR file.
:
:Those people who are actively working with the ports hierarchy can
:cvsup the whole blessed thing as they currently do.
:
:The ports maintainers would not have to lift a finger. The ports
:structure
At 09:58 PM 2/9/00 +0100, Kai Voigt wrote:
Hello,
I'm just doing a cvsup update of my system and -as many times before- I
realize that /usr/ports/ takes a lot of time and also disk space to sync.
# du -sk /usr/ports
71118 /usr/ports
Is that just source or with some distfiles and port/work
On 2000-Feb-10 07:59:48 +1100, Kai Voigt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# du -sk /usr/ports
71118 /usr/ports
Seems reasonable. Last time I checked (1st June 1999), I found
79967 - of which 35215 was CVS-related files/directories. There
were also nearly 62,000 inodes. It'll get worse - PHK has
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Seems reasonable. Last time I checked (1st June 1999), I found
79967 - of which 35215 was CVS-related files/directories. There
were also nearly 62,000 inodes. It'll get worse - PHK has changed
the FS defaults from 8K/1K to 16K/4K, which will
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:19:18PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact?
This comes up regularly. The last I recall was a thread "a two-level
port system?" in -hackers last May/June.
Actually, -ports discussed this quite recently, and it was
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:44:09AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:19:18PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact?
This comes up regularly. The last I recall was a thread "a two-level
port system?" in -hackers last May/June.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:45:42PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Flattening out the unecessarily deep ports directory structure would help,
too. Probably, 98 percent of it could be done with a script, and it would
greatly decrease cvsup time and space.
I've often thought that it might be better
Christopher Masto wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:45:42PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Flattening out the unecessarily deep ports directory structure would help,
too. Probably, 98 percent of it could be done with a script, and it would
greatly decrease cvsup time and space.
I've often
: contain.
:
:Here's what we can do. We keep all the "major" subdirectories in
:place, such as audio, devel, etc. BUT, instead of branching out into
:separate subdirectories, we can just put everything into the
:Makefile. For example, here are some subdirectories in
:/usr/ports/audio:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, I wrote:
PHK has changed the FS defaults from 8K/1K to 16K/4K,
Ooops. I mis-remembered a commit pkh made last August
(src/release/sysinstall/install.c 1.91), I thought he had
changed the defaults, but he just commented that 16K/4K
was more sensible... My apologies to
Richard Wackerbarth writes:
There are two problems in the size of the ports system.
1) The large number of inodes.
I don't see the ports tree as the problem. The problem is that
FreeBSD does not handle a very large directory hierarchy like
that presented by the ports tree very well.
The right
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
All these makefiles would go inside of audio. To do the building each
port, we can have the "work" be done inside the user's home
directory. This would eliminate the need to log in as root in order
to do the actual building. The benefits of having
At 11:45 AM 2/10/00 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: contain.
:
:Here's what we can do. We keep all the "major" subdirectories in
:place, such as audio, devel, etc. BUT, instead of branching out into
:separate subdirectories, we can just put everything into the
:Makefile. For example, here are
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Richard Wackerbarth writes:
There are two problems in the size of the ports system.
1) The large number of inodes.
I don't see the ports tree as the problem. The problem is that
FreeBSD does not handle a very large directory hierarchy like
that
Just FYI, a cvsup of ports over a single ISDN-line took 22 min on a
soft-update'd disk.
.cvsignore
INDEX
LEGAL
Makefile
Mk
README
Templates
Tools
YEAR2000
archivers
astro
audio
benchmarks
cad
comms
converters
databases
deskutils
devel
distfiles
editors
emulators
ftp
games
graphics
lang
mail
math
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Leif Neland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just FYI, a cvsup of ports over a single ISDN-line took 22 min on a
soft-update'd disk.
Something is seriously wrong over there then, because I can update
my entire CVS repository in 1.5-2 minutes. And my Internet link is
a
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:18:12 -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Leif Neland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just FYI, a cvsup of ports over a single ISDN-line took 22 min on a
soft-update'd disk.
Something is seriously wrong over there then, because I can update
my
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:18:12PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Leif Neland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just FYI, a cvsup of ports over a single ISDN-line took 22 min on a
soft-update'd disk.
Something is seriously wrong over there then, because I can update
my
Hello,
I'm just doing a cvsup update of my system and -as many times before- I
realize that /usr/ports/ takes a lot of time and also disk space to sync.
# du -sk /usr/ports
71118 /usr/ports
Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact? Would it make
any sense to offer some
* Kai Voigt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000209 13:26] wrote:
Hello,
I'm just doing a cvsup update of my system and -as many times before- I
realize that /usr/ports/ takes a lot of time and also disk space to sync.
# du -sk /usr/ports
71118 /usr/ports
Am I the only one being little annoyed by
: a target "overview" into each /usr/ports/*/Makefile to list all available
: subdiretories. Then, with some other command, one could fetch the
: current port's directory from the cvs server to install the port.
:
: Do these thoughts make any sense?
:
:Yes, this has been desired for some time,
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: a target "overview" into each /usr/ports/*/Makefile to list all available
: subdiretories. Then, with some other command, one could fetch the
: current port's directory from the cvs server to install the port.
:
: Do these thoughts make any
33 matches
Mail list logo
