atom feed17 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archAdding bsdiff to the base system
FromSent OnAttachments
Colin PercivalMar 30, 2005 3:47 pm 
Ceri DaviesMar 31, 2005 2:16 am 
Alexey DokuchaevMar 31, 2005 2:24 am 
Colin PercivalMar 31, 2005 2:33 am 
Colin PercivalMar 31, 2005 2:47 am 
Robert WatsonMar 31, 2005 9:06 pm 
Mario HoerichApr 1, 2005 5:43 am 
Dan NelsonApr 1, 2005 7:27 am 
Garance A DrosihnApr 1, 2005 12:16 pm 
Alex BurkeApr 1, 2005 1:18 pm 
Colin PercivalApr 1, 2005 2:12 pm 
Max LaierApr 1, 2005 3:26 pm 
John BaldwinApr 2, 2005 12:15 pm 
Ceri DaviesApr 4, 2005 8:45 am 
Olaf WagnerApr 6, 2005 11:49 pm 
Colin PercivalApr 7, 2005 12:35 am 
John PolstraApr 8, 2005 8:11 am 
Subject:Adding bsdiff to the base system
From:Colin Percival (coli@wadham.ox.ac.uk)
Date:Mar 31, 2005 2:47:40 am
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-arch

Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:

I also want to ask if there're enough reasons to bring portsnap and its dependencies into the base. What's wrong with having it in ports? It does not seem to be used/needed for vast majority of our user base, or am I wrong?

I'll conceed that portsnap is not yet used by the majority of our user base; but I think that is largely because portsnap is still quite new, and thus relatively unknown. At present portsnap is the only mechanism available by which most users can securely maintain an up-to-date copy of the FreeBSD ports tree; it also provides some other advantages over cvsup (reduced bandwidth and ports INDEX/INDEX-5/INDEX-6 files). Since portsnap and its dependencies will not significantly bloat the base system -- portsnap + bsdiff weigh in at a combined 54kB -- I think it is a sufficiently useful tool to justify inclusion.

When you consider that cvsup is a classic example of a program which is only excluded from the base system as a result of its dependencies, and portsnap makes cvsup unnecessary for most users, the case is even clearer.