Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 and immediately update to the > >> latest version without having to pull down the whole tree again. > > > > c[v]sup doesn't have to pull the whole tree again if it doesn't > > have a checkout file, ... > > I think you dramatically misunderstand what I'm suggesting, and why it > would be beneficial. I have, but I don't feel too bad about it, given that you are referring to a fairly subtle problem that isn't documented in the csup man-page, and was brought up in a sub-thread of an unnamed thread in a different mailing list. For the benefit of people that don't read everything in the stable list. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.stable/51460 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 the ports tree tarball (+ cvsup files) we could have *only* the portsnap database on the CD, and let portsnap do the extract work at install time. -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 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? And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the default/recommended method today. >>> That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P >>> >>> But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed >>> cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. >> Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would >> happen: > > Oh wait. The cvsup checkouts file is probably a small (set of) > file(s) with some revision information, Right, it's a single file whose format is: F 5 1196039185 D ports V ports/.cvsignore,v 3#1e71#110#11782530584#11204#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/CHANGES,v 3#1e71#110#11902805645#937964#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/COPYRIGHT,v 3#1e71#110#11782530594#24604#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/GIDs,v 3#1e71#110#11891345385#141814#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/KNOBS,v 3#1e71#110#11888033805#104554#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/LEGAL,v 3#1e71#110#11934328226#2750624#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/MOVED,v 3#1e71#110#11941329996#7698754#root5#wheel3#4441#0 V ports/Makefile,v 3#1e71#110#11908713865#603194#root5#wheel3#4441#0 D ports/Mk ... Mine is about 19M, but I leave out the language-specific parts of the tree. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 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? > >> And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the > >> default/recommended method today. > > > > That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P > > > > But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed > > cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. > > Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would > happen: 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. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 the c[v]sup checkouts file >>> with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? >> And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the >> default/recommended method today. > > That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P > > But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed > cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. Assuming I understand what you mean, I think one of two things would happen: 1. The drive that the ports tree is on would be reformatted, therefore the new one could be installed, or 2. The drive would not be reformatted, therefore the old (and presumably already functional) ports tree would still be there. Maybe I'm missing something though? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 >> could start from there and immediately update to the latest version >> without having to pull down the whole tree again. > > c[v]sup doesn't have to pull the whole tree again if it doesn't have a > checkout file, it's just a kind of metadata cache that speeds things up > and reduces the server load. I think you dramatically misunderstand what I'm suggesting, and why it would be beneficial. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 file > > with the tarball, and install it into some standard location? > > And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the > default/recommended method today. That would save me 42Mb to download each time :-P But euhm.. it should only be installed on systems which are installed cleanly, not on systems being upgraded via cdrom images. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 rather than an arbitrary tarball downloaded from the website. I still think its worth benchmarking it, but using the upgrade from the 6.2 freeze to just after the official 6.2 release. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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 and immediately update to the latest version > without having to pull down the whole tree again. c[v]sup doesn't have to pull the whole tree again if it doesn't have a checkout file, it's just a kind of metadata cache that speeds things up and reduces the server load. I think it might be worthwhile doing some real-world timings with two points a month apart (and away from the ports-freeze) to see what the benefit is. My feeling is that it's not worth the effort, because most people that use the tarball only do so because of networking problems, and even if they do switch to csup, it's the kind of thing that's done very infrequently. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
* 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 into some standard location? > And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the > default/recommended method today. I would think of both. I personally prefer c[v]sup because it doesn't delete custom patches, which I have a dozen. -- Dmitry A. Marakasov| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.amdmi3.ru ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Idea about the ports tree included in the release
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? And why not the portsnap database instead? It seems the default/recommended method today. -- Alex Dupre ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
