| 1 |
On Friday 12 March 2004 08:19 am, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:56:16PM -0500 or thereabouts, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > What about cvsup? I know it doesn't work on very many architectures |
| 4 |
> > currently, but it may be an acceptable method of obtaining the |
| 5 |
> > development modules (and CVS files to go with them) if we had a box to |
| 6 |
> > act as a cvsup server. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If we're just talking about doing this to make things like current portage |
| 9 |
> source available, then I'd much rather look at generating tarballs and |
| 10 |
> placing them on the mirrors, much like we do w/ the portage tree itself. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i see cvsup as not only servicing the large anon user base but developers |
| 13 |
also ... it's also widely known that running `cvs update` on a whole tree is |
| 14 |
far from fast ... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
will cvsup be some kind of magically fast solution ? i dont know, i'd like to |
| 17 |
do some serious benchmarking before i go proclaiming the death of cvs ;) |
| 18 |
-mike |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives