> There has been some discussion about removing CVS from the base system > now it is no longer used. No concensus was reached, so it's not going > away immediately (and would not be removed from 9.x or earlier branches > in any case).> CVS is (and will remain) available in ports (devel/cvs).> -- > Peter JeremyNow CVS may be no longer used for FreeBSD servers, but NetBSD servers still use it for system source and pkgsrc. I like to keep up with NetBSD 6-STABLE and HEAD, maybe a final try for NetBSD 5.2, and that includes pkgsrc. If somebody could persuade NetBSD to switch to svn, I would surely not quarrel. Tom
On 2 Jan 2013 11:08, "Thomas Mueller" <mueller23 at insightbb.com> wrote:> > > There has been some discussion about removing CVS from the base system > > now it is no longer used. No concensus was reached, so it's not going > > away immediately (and would not be removed from 9.x or earlier branches > > in any case). > > > CVS is (and will remain) available in ports (devel/cvs). > > > -- > > Peter Jeremy > > Now CVS may be no longer used for FreeBSD servers, but NetBSD serversstill use it for system source and pkgsrc.> > I like to keep up with NetBSD 6-STABLE and HEAD, maybe a final try forNetBSD 5.2, and that includes pkgsrc.> > If somebody could persuade NetBSD to switch to svn, I would surely notquarrel. To clarify, no-one wants to remove CVS completely, the suggestion was to move it out of the base system. Chris
On 2 January 2013 06:26, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:> To clarify, no-one wants to remove CVS completely, the suggestion was to > move it out of the base system.As the developer responsible for this: CVS will be removed from base. It already exists as a port in devel/cvs -- Eitan Adler
Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote:>On 2 January 2013 06:26, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote: >> To clarify, no-one wants to remove CVS completely, the suggestion was >to >> move it out of the base system. > >As the developer responsible for this: > >CVS will be removed from base. It already exists as a port in >devel/cvsWill svn be added to the base? Not long ago I run into an issue when trying to downgrade my system to 9.0. After I noticed how majority of ports were broken due to changes in the libc I decided to back out by fetching 9.1 release just to learn that svn does not work as well. There were a lot of dependencies I decided to use portupgrade which required me to recompile ruby. After that it was a lot of compiling (for example Apache because apr was broken). Having svn in the base would save tons of time in my situation. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 1/2/13 8:05 AM, Derek Kulinski wrote:> Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote: > >> On 2 January 2013 06:26, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote: >>> To clarify, no-one wants to remove CVS completely, the suggestion was >> to >>> move it out of the base system. >> As the developer responsible for this: >> >> CVS will be removed from base. It already exists as a port in >> devel/cvs > Will svn be added to the base? Not long ago I run into an issue when trying to downgrade my system to 9.0. > > After I noticed how majority of ports were broken due to changes in the libc I decided to back out by fetching 9.1 release just to learn that svn does not work as well. There were a lot of dependencies I decided to use portupgrade which required me to recompile ruby. After that it was a lot of compiling (for example Apache because apr was broken). Having svn in the base would save tons of time in my situation. >Sorry, you needed to fetch 9.0 packages then*. Putting all of that in base is not likely to happen. * I wish doing this was somewhat more intuitive/easy -Alfred
> Note that there is no practical way to audit a cvs tree > after an incident like thatAfaik, there's no way to natively audit an svn tree either. Only the hash based systems (ala: git-fsck, etc) can offer the needed degree of assurance. Otherwise you're left comparing copies which is a futile waste of time with all but the ancient plaintext systems. Or choosing copies to promote, which has its problems too. [good that cvs is leaving base so all the systems will be solely in ports, finally]
>Hello, > >Am 03.01.2013 um 16:36 schrieb Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com>: >> CVS/SVN should be considered a development tool. Users should not see >> the impact of the switch. In theory. > > >What is the recommended csup replacement for users that did > > cd /usr/src && make update buildworld buildkernel > >as their method of keeping the system current? > >I'm a bit reluctant to installing svn on every system that needs source >updates. Are there more lightweight ways?subversion isn't so bad, especially if you build a stripped-down version -- many of the optional dependencies aren't needed for a basic client, which is a fraction of the size of the source code. Just get rid of the extras, and use a stripped-down version of sqlite3 only. And of course you could install it on one of your machines, and then distribute the source code among the rest by other means. But there are alternatives, and several are documented in the FreeBSD Handbook(does anyone read it?): --you could use ports/net/rsync or an rsync clone, which may be smaller (See: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/mirrors-rsync.html ); or --you could use ctm(1) to get the repository via email, or use fetch(1) or another small ftp/http client to grab the ctm deltas directly from the server at ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/CTM/ , or from one of the mirrors (See: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ctm.html ). Regards, b.