On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> > >
> > > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> > > mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
> > > local copy, or over NFS.
> > >
> > > If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server
> > > will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking
> > > your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you
> > > are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the
> > > lock, no problem.
> >
> > It will also be freakishly slow, and use massive amounts of temp
> > space.
>
> No slower than cvs using rsh/ssh, although it does tend to create alot
> of inodes in /tmp. (It doesn't create alot of temp space, other than
> what is used to create the directories...)
Yes, using rsh/ssh is also slow, but we were talking about *local*
access, which has none of those drawbacks. -R makes cvs operations go
quite a bit faster, and AFAIK is perfectly safe if you're using a
private repo for which you know there will be no contention.
Kris
PGP signature
