Hi Simone :) --- Simone Rota <sip@varlock.com> wrote:
On a related note, I'm very happy with svn in general, but not so much with the current svn ports backend, here's the negative aspects (at least compared to cvsup & rsync):
1. Slow / high local load . I'm not talking about network performance, it's just that a 'svn update' seems to hit disk/cpu badly.
2. More clutter into the ports tree, compare: simone@sip: ~ > du -hs /usr/ports/{base,opt,contrib,svn} 2.0M /usr/ports/base 1.9M /usr/ports/opt 17M /usr/ports/contrib 58M /usr/ports/svn
3. quite long compile time for svup (minor annoyance)
Zsync looks interesting. I suppose it's okay that the author still calls is 'beta' - we could certainly explore it. The 'rsync algorithm over http' is pretty much what httpup gives us. So, I'm curious to see if it performs any better. As for rsync, here're the adjustments I made to the existing driver: http://jdolan.dyndns.org/jaydolan/tmp/rsync As you can see, it was simply the addition of the RSYNC_EXCLUDE variable, to prevent source and package archives from being deleted upon `ports -u`. I have not tested it, it was only an idea. As for performing the switch next weekend, I think I'll be around (at least on Saturday) in case the shit hits the fan *g* Jay Dolan Software Engineer, Systems Analyst Windmill Cycles, Inc. 508.999.4000 __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com