re: portsnap base thought

From: Colin Percival (cperciva_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 08/27/05

  • Next message: Craig Rodrigues: "Re: [RFC] -Wredundant-decls: keep it or remove it?" 
    Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:16:09 -0700
To: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>

    Peter van Dijk wrote:
    > portsnap requires that the /usr/ports on a machine was created with
    > portsnap extract, before it will allow you to portsnap update.
    >
    > Suggestion: make the portstree as delivered in 6.0-RELEASE (on the CD
    > etc.) compatible with portsnap extract, so people can use portsnap
    > from a base CD install without having to fetch the portstree through
    > portsnap first. I do realise this might bloat the CD image by about
    > 50 megabytes (because of /var/db/portsnap) but I think it's worth it.

    There are two quite separate issues here:
    1. When "portsnap fetch" is first run, portsnap needs to download a
    compressed snapshot of the entire tree (roughly 35MB).
    2. If you try to run "portsnap update" against a ports tree which was
    not created with "portsnap extract", portsnap will refuse to run because
    it doesn't know which files in the ports tree need to be updated.

    The solution to the first problem is to ship a copy of /var/db/portsnap
    on the release images; this would add roughly 35MB to the release size,
    but it would also allow 28MB to be reclaimed by not shipping ports.tgz
    (and instead extracting it using portsnap).

    The solution to the second problem is to ship a copy of the ports tree
    which contains an appropriate /usr/ports/.portsnap.INDEX file; this would
    add roughly 600kB.

    Given that portsnap currently only has about 1500-2000 users (it's hard to
    get an accurate estimate since people tend not to update their ports trees
    as often during the freeze, but I'm fairly confident the number is in that
    range) it doesn't seem reasonable to make major changes to how releases
    are done yet; but assuming the usage of portsnap increases significantly
    over the next year, this is certainly something to consider for 7.0-R.

    Colin Percival
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Craig Rodrigues: "Re: [RFC] -Wredundant-decls: keep it or remove it?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Downloading ports tree again
      ... How can I 'reset' portsnap and get the ports tree again? ... I would first try a "portsnap extract" and see if this extracts the whole ports tree again ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • RE: nubie question - Ports - Ruby 1.8.4
      ... # portsnap extract ... During sysinstall it had asked me if I wanted the ports collection ... complete system + upgrade it to the ports tree for a X-developer ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: nubie question - Ports - Ruby 1.8.4
      ... I have Ruby 1.8.4 in my tree now. ... # portsnap extract ... During sysinstall it had asked me if I wanted the ports collection ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap
      ... >>Portsnap will not remove any ports which it doesn't know about. ... If ports/foo/bar doesn't exist in the ports tree, ... next time that "portsnap extract" is executed (which shouldn't ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Re: FreeBSD-8 and portsnap
      ... portsnap fetch, then portsnap extract, ... If you remove those files and run portsnap fetch update again, ... does 'portsnap fetch update -I' restore INDEX-8? ...
      (freebsd-current)