On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:42:42PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 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
Yes, this is a local repo indeed.
> 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.
W/
--
| / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte Powered by FreeBSD/alpha http://www.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
