On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:06:48 -0800
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:00:59 -0800
> > Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
> >> with the tarball ...
> >> since you could start from there an
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>>> That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P
>
> Oh wait. The cvsup checkouts file is probably a small (set of)
> file(s) with some revision information, while the portsnap file is
> a huge chunk of data with a copy of the ports tree.
Well, even better: instead of
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:09PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
> up version of th
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:09PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote:
> >> Doug Barton wrote:
> >>> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
> >>> up version of the ports tree, I had an ide
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote:
>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
>>> up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
>>> useful. How hard would it be to include
RW wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:00:59 -0800
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
>> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? I think
>> that would greatly increase the utility of the tarball, since you
>> coul
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:39:19AM +0100, Alex Dupre wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
> > up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
> > useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts fil
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:13:06 +
RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My feeling is that it's not worth the effort, because most people that
> use the tarball only do so because of networking problems,
I think I slightly misunderstood that you're talking about the ports
tree on the install disk ra
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:00:59 -0800
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? I think
> that would greatly increase the utility of the tarball, since you
> could start from there
* Alex Dupre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
> > up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
> > useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
> > with the tarball, and install it in
Doug Barton wrote:
> In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
> up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
> useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location?
A
In thinking about the guy who posted to -stable about using the tar'ed
up version of the ports tree, I had an idea that would make that more
useful. How hard would it be to include the c[v]sup checkouts file
with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? I think
that would greatly in
12 matches
Mail list logo
