On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:21:31PM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
I'm not sure if it would be easy to mimick the output of cvsup for ports though, but since the checkout is a pure webdav application it's probably not too much work (e.g. adjust cadaver).
Apart form all technical advantages, this seems to be the real drawback. As long as we have no replacement for cvsup, which must be an opt port, the whole debate is a very theoretical one ;) Just to get this straight: it's not a missing functionality, it's really only the way the output looks during updating. Writing a new backend for
Hi, On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 15:01:11 +0100, Juergen Daubert wrote: ports to support subversion would be just a matter of a few minutes: basically it's just svn revert, followed by an svn update. Note that since revert is a disconnected operation, no network is required for it. The revert feature could be cool even in other situations: if you broke a port, you don't have to ports -u just to revert it. Obvious drawback is the need to have a .svn directory within all ports directories, but this can be solved by using svk :-)
ATM I'm very happy with the fact, that CLC uses the same distribution stuff as CRUX does, and would really prefer a solution which conserves this. Yes, I guess being in sync with Per is a good thing. Maybe he'll elaborate on the idea of merging everything? ;-) This of course brings up another criteria I didn't take into account, which is permission per branch etc.
Back to the main thread, I like the idea to have a wiki as the main web site for CLC. But what should happen with the other things hosted at berlios, like ports database, CLC mailing list ... ? Well, the mailing list (mail server) is quite reliable, so I'd say we keep it there. I'd keep berlios as a cvs for stuff like docs, more of a Community page that ports development.
Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net