RE: What replaces csup?
I also find portsnap slower than either csup or svn. That surprises me. Once the initial download and extract is done, I find portsnap fetch update to be miles faster than csup. However, each to his own, I suppose. +1 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
mer...@stonehenge.com schreef op : Stas == Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl writes: Stas On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a complete Stas repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite Stas heavy-weight. The entire history of the Linux kernel since switching to git 5 years ago is stored in a repo that is *less than half the size* of a single current checkout. The entire history of the XFree86 project ended up being a repo that was only 2-3 times the size of the current checkout. Seriously, don't be afraid of git simply because it has all the history. SVN is already worse because it has a single local backup copy for every live file, 2x right there. I may have been influenced here by the fact that, in KDE, the size became a problem, due to the large amounts of binary content in the repositories (artwork), which is, of course, not the case for FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, pete wright wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead. svn export can get a copy of all the current files, but it copies all of them every time, not just the changes. yea i agree with you. i wonder if it would be worth the effort of sharing a svn export via rsync or httpd to make fetching delta's easier and/or more efficient from a base install? It's an interesting idea. If the repository files were directly accessible in a filesystem, that filesystem could be shared with rsyncd and some exclude settings without needing an export at all. With svn bdb, the files are not directly accessible, but I don't know for fsfs. Probably not, so a periodic export would still be required. i did some tinkering with this last night, with the thought of storing an export in a zfs filesystem and eventually making it available publicly via a jail. my findings were that an export of the 9.1 relng branch consumed ~750MB while a svn co consumed ~1.4G of disk space and a full export took roughly 10-15mins. i eventually decided that what I was doing wasn't really needed by the wider end-user community. after mulling this move from cvs/csup for a bit i came to the conclusion that really the need for a source checkout is not as important as it may have been several years ago. freebsd-update is a really great tool, and i reckon for a majority of users out there not having to rebuild the kernel+world to get updates is a good thing(tm). i also reckon running a GENERIC kernel is appropriate in maybe %90 of use-cases out there as well (i haven't had a need to build a custom kernel on various server and workstation platforms since 2008'ish frankly). in this context, going the binary distribution route seems like a really smart decision. having a majority of your users basically running the same builds of the world and kernel *should* decrease the amount of support bandwidth needed to get people updated and running current code. i also reckon having more people running the same binaries would be helpful in finding reproducible bugs and hopefully squash them. so back to my original point...for sites running many systems, or sites requiring specific builds - mirroring the source tree locally is still very doable, and fortunately there are many well known ways to do this (svn co, svn export, skv, etc..). you could even argue that having a svn checkout may make patching bugs easier as you could just import a svn diff, rebuild and test. i also feel, personally, that it is nice to allow someone else build the kernel+world and let me grab binary updates as needed. now i can spend my clock cycles on more important tasks, like building packages for my pkgng repo :) -pete -- pete wright www.nycbug.org @nomadlogicLA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl wrote: Jerry schreef op : On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700 Michael Sierchio articulated: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. If you are going to make a sweeping change anyway, it makes no sense to do it in a half–assed manned. However, it does appear that in all too many instances, FreeBSD plays follow the leader rather then taking the bulls by the horns and getting ahead of the curve. I am sure I'll be hearing from the baby steps choir now. In any event, a comprehensive side-by-side evaluation of the two should be done by an impartial party. We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two different workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, and the former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not really have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more about the production cycle you want to have. If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) be in control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested changesets by the community of developers. This community would be more free in the manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong differentiation between committers and other people suggesting updates. On the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of committers and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the schedule and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely simplified.) It is a matter of taste. +1 one thing worth noting is that developers have been using mercurial for quite a bit of time now for FreeBSD development(1), to take advantage of the distributed model of that SCM. yet having the main tree under CVS in the past, and SVN currently, makes sense to me. i feel that it results in a cleaner public tree that is easier to navigate. so fortunately the project has been able to take advantage of both of of these philosophies of SCM. -pete (1) http://wiki.freebsd.org/LocalMercurial -- pete wright www.nycbug.org @nomadlogicLA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote: For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the ports tree. PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and portsnap for ports? Thanks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Walter Hurry writes: PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and portsnap for ports? _Wrong_? Nothing. But a lot of people like the idea of using the same tool to solve nearly identical problems. Your experience may diverga. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Walter Hurry wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote: For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the ports tree. PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and portsnap for ports? That's another way. If there are any local changes to the ports tree, portsnap will overwrite them. I also find portsnap slower than either csup or svn. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Walter Hurry walterhu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote: For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the ports tree. PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and portsnap for ports? my personal issue is the fact that csup and portsnap are both part of the base system whereas svn would require installation via ports or the pkg utility. it is frankly a minor inconvenience - and hopefully there will be a csup like utility for svn available in base one day. -pete -- pete wright www.nycbug.org @nomadlogicLA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:18:02 -0600, Warren Block wrote: I also find portsnap slower than either csup or svn. That surprises me. Once the initial download and extract is done, I find portsnap fetch update to be miles faster than csup. However, each to his own, I suppose. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Warren Block schreef op : The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space used by the svn checkout. Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they have all the commit history. This is where SVN and CVS differ from systems like Git or Mercury, which have all the history in a local working copy. I think the overhead of SVN consists of backups and cached copies of the previous revision, but I am not quite sure. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-) - M On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl wrote: Warren Block schreef op : The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space used by the svn checkout. Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they have all the commit history. This is where SVN and CVS differ from systems like Git or Mercury, which have all the history in a local working copy. I think the overhead of SVN consists of backups and cached copies of the previous revision, but I am not quite sure. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700 Michael Sierchio articulated: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. If you are going to make a sweeping change anyway, it makes no sense to do it in a half–assed manned. However, it does appear that in all too many instances, FreeBSD plays follow the leader rather then taking the bulls by the horns and getting ahead of the curve. I am sure I'll be hearing from the baby steps choir now. In any event, a comprehensive side-by-side evaluation of the two should be done by an impartial party. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:00:08 -0500, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. Git is available in a hush-hush unsupported fashion for ports and source. I'll warn you: it will take you forever to pull it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Jerry schreef op : On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700 Michael Sierchio articulated: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. If you are going to make a sweeping change anyway, it makes no sense to do it in a half–assed manned. However, it does appear that in all too many instances, FreeBSD plays follow the leader rather then taking the bulls by the horns and getting ahead of the curve. I am sure I'll be hearing from the baby steps choir now. In any event, a comprehensive side-by-side evaluation of the two should be done by an impartial party. We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two different workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, and the former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not really have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more about the production cycle you want to have. If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) be in control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested changesets by the community of developers. This community would be more free in the manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong differentiation between committers and other people suggesting updates. On the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of committers and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the schedule and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely simplified.) It is a matter of taste. On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a complete repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite heavy-weight. Stas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On 09/18/12 13:00, Michael Sierchio wrote: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-) It's worth reading this http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitDrawbacks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Stas Verberkt wrote: Warren Block schreef op : The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space used by the svn checkout. Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they have all the commit history. This is where SVN and CVS differ from systems like Git or Mercury, which have all the history in a local working copy. I think the overhead of SVN consists of backups and cached copies of the previous revision, but I am not quite sure. You're right. 'svn blame', for instance, retrieves the history from the repository. So it's not as bad as it could be... but that 700M number was from a ports tree checkout. My source checkout shows 869M in .svn. That's a pretty large chunk of bandwidth for data that is useless to someone who just wants to do a buildworld, as opposed to actually working on the source. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, pete wright wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead. svn export can get a copy of all the current files, but it copies all of them every time, not just the changes. yea i agree with you. i wonder if it would be worth the effort of sharing a svn export via rsync or httpd to make fetching delta's easier and/or more efficient from a base install? It's an interesting idea. If the repository files were directly accessible in a filesystem, that filesystem could be shared with rsyncd and some exclude settings without needing an export at all. With svn bdb, the files are not directly accessible, but I don't know for fsfs. Probably not, so a periodic export would still be required. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:44:46 +0200 Stas Verberkt articulated: We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two different workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle, and the former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not really have to do with big or small steps and leading of following, but more about the production cycle you want to have. If we were to use a Git-like system, the releng team would (probably) be in control on which patches are excepted from the pool of suggested changesets by the community of developers. This community would be more free in the manner in which they experiment, and there would be a less strong differentiation between committers and other people suggesting updates. On the other hand, our current approach has a controlled group of committers and the releng team only has the additional power of setting the schedule and taking the snapshot that becomes the release. (Gravely simplified.) It is a matter of taste. On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a complete repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite heavy-weight. I found the information at this URL http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitConversion quite interesting, especially the numbers under the Speed Comparisons heading at the end. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Warren Block writes: You're right. 'svn blame', for instance, retrieves the history from the repository. So it's not as bad as it could be... but that 700M number was from a ports tree checkout. My source checkout shows 869M in .svn. That's a pretty large chunk of bandwidth for data that is useless to someone who just wants to do a buildworld, as opposed to actually working on the source. Having no idea about what's inside the black box ... it would be nice to be able to specify a default level of commit retireval with overrides on a per-subtree basis. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Stas == Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl writes: Stas On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a complete Stas repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite Stas heavy-weight. The entire history of the Linux kernel since switching to git 5 years ago is stored in a repo that is *less than half the size* of a single current checkout. The entire history of the XFree86 project ended up being a repo that was only 2-3 times the size of the current checkout. Seriously, don't be afraid of git simply because it has all the history. SVN is already worse because it has a single local backup copy for every live file, 2x right there. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On 18-09-2012 14:00, Michael Sierchio wrote: We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-) I have both a git and svn checkout of FreeBSD current and while git contains the full history it takes up less disk space (about 30%): 540M.git 759M.svn signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: What replaces csup?
Hi, Reference: From: Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com Reply-to: Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500 Message-id: D97788AE24B7FFB0C79AA6FB@localhost Paul Schmehl wrote: Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup for fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming subversion will become part of base in 9.x.) No. Reporting what I read today in a...@freebsd.org : Subject: Re: Fallout from the CVS discussion ... Summary: some say subversion is changing too fast, they'll leave in ports. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, like a play script. Indent old text with . Send plain text. Not: HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup for fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming subversion will become part of base in 9.x.) 9.1-RC1 here. Subversion is still in ports at the moment. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
--On September 17, 2012 11:23:09 PM + Walter Hurry walterhu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup for fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming subversion will become part of base in 9.x.) 9.1-RC1 here. Subversion is still in ports at the moment. Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
Paul Schmehl writes: Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of identifying what files need to be fetched and actually fetching them). At this level of discussion they are mutually exclusive. I have switched from csup to subversion for ports and docs. After modest preparation it was essentially painless. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
--On September 17, 2012 8:42:33 PM -0400 Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote: Paul Schmehl writes: Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of identifying what files need to be fetched and actually fetching them). At this level of discussion they are mutually exclusive. I have switched from csup to subversion for ports and docs. After modest preparation it was essentially painless. Are these modest preparations documented somewhere? Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Robert Huff wrote: Paul Schmehl writes: Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of identifying what files need to be fetched and actually fetching them). At this level of discussion they are mutually exclusive. I have switched from csup to subversion for ports and docs. After modest preparation it was essentially painless. The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space used by the svn checkout. csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead. svn export can get a copy of all the current files, but it copies all of them every time, not just the changes. An svnup program was under development, but I don't know the present status. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On September 17, 2012 8:42:33 PM -0400 Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote: Paul Schmehl writes: Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of identifying what files need to be fetched and actually fetching them). At this level of discussion they are mutually exclusive. I have switched from csup to subversion for ports and docs. After modest preparation it was essentially painless. Are these modest preparations documented somewhere? For source, save any local diffs somewhere, delete /usr/src, install svn from ports, svn checkout the version you want, patch from the diffs. Same for docs. Example checkout of 9-STABLE: svn checkout svn://svn0.us-west.FreeBSD.org/base/stable/9 /usr/src For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the ports tree. After that, it's just svn up to update the appropriate directory. If something changes in the archive that conflicts with local patches, svn will let you know and try to help merge the remote and local changes. Example update of source checked out as above: svn up /usr/src ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: What replaces csup?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Robert Huff wrote: Paul Schmehl writes: Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something else to fetch source? As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of identifying what files need to be fetched and actually fetching them). At this level of discussion they are mutually exclusive. I have switched from csup to subversion for ports and docs. After modest preparation it was essentially painless. The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space used by the svn checkout. csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead. svn export can get a copy of all the current files, but it copies all of them every time, not just the changes. yea i agree with you. i wonder if it would be worth the effort of sharing a svn export via rsync or httpd to make fetching delta's easier and/or more efficient from a base install? -pete -- pete wright www.nycbug.org @nomadlogicLA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
