I would think that a Subversion server would be less resource intensive on
the server than an rsync server, especially if people use rsync -c.
It takes a certain amount of paranoia to use "rsync -c" on a regular basis :-)
In the most common case, a 'fink selfupdate' would not be very resource-intensive as compared to CVS-- when both sides build their file lists, and realize that the vast majority of files are the same, there won't be much time spent checksumming. I don't know the specs of opendarwin, but I would imagine that the processor is idle more often than the network link is.
As for Subversion, here's my two cents' worth. At work, I looked at migrating our collection of RCS and CVS repositories to Subversion. I encountered very little trouble in converting a CVS-based project to svn, but it was fairly small, and scheduling a few minutes of downtime to upgrade to the next major version of svn would not be a big thing.
One time, when I couldn't get to the CVS server, I snagged the repository tarball. To use scientific terms, it was "freakin' huge." I hope that was just because of the old file naming scheme, but before anyone decides to use Subversion to host the Fink info file collection, they should consider the effort involved in handling svn dumps of that magnitude.
-- Charles Lepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ghz.cc/charles/
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
