1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.UNIX.BSD.FREEBSD.MIS

  • 14.0: Is the portsnap /usr/ports hierarchy still useful?

    From Winston@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 25 19:54:47 2023
    Back in FreeBSD 11, there was a partially populated /usr/ports
    hierarchy as created by portsnap. The idea (IIRC) was that one could
    descend to the top of whichever application you wanted in the file
    hierarchy, and then running make would pull in all the program's files
    and build it.

    FreeBSD 14 uses git, not portsnap. I haven't had occasion to use git
    yet, so I'm not familiar with how that particular tool works in detail.

    Is the portsnap hierarchy in /usr/ports still useful, or does git just
    build the directory tree it needs when you clone/checkout a program's
    source?

    I'm only asking because if that 930MB isn't useful any more, I can
    delete most of /usr/ports/*, freeing up the space. (I'll keep
    /usr/ports/ itself.)

    TIA,
    -WBE

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alastair Hogge@21:1/5 to Winston on Sun Nov 26 04:28:03 2023
    On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:54:47 -0500, Winston wrote:

    Back in FreeBSD 11, there was a partially populated /usr/ports hierarchy
    as created by portsnap. The idea (IIRC) was that one could descend to
    the top of whichever application you wanted in the file hierarchy, and
    then running make would pull in all the program's files and build it.

    Ahh portsnap was a great tool, was killer for low resource systems and
    crappy DSL notinnernet.

    FreeBSD 14 uses git, not portsnap. I haven't had occasion to use git
    yet, so I'm not familiar with how that particular tool works in detail.

    Is the portsnap hierarchy in /usr/ports still useful, or does git just
    build the directory tree it needs when you clone/checkout a program's
    source?

    I doubt git(1) has any context of the state that portsnap stores. You can
    nuke it away, and start clean for use with git, or however you configure
    that name space.

    I'm only asking because if that 930MB isn't useful any more, I can
    delete most of /usr/ports/*, freeing up the space. (I'll keep
    /usr/ports/

    /usr/ports is just a read-only nullfs mount of an NFS mounted fs, which
    stores the git checkout of Ports, on my hosts

    --
    To health and anarchy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alastair Hogge@21:1/5 to Winston on Sun Nov 26 04:26:58 2023
    On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:54:47 -0500, Winston wrote:

    Back in FreeBSD 11, there was a partially populated /usr/ports hierarchy
    as created by portsnap. The idea (IIRC) was that one could descend to
    the top of whichever application you wanted in the file hierarchy, and
    then running make would pull in all the program's files and build it.

    Ahh portsnap was a great tool, was killer for low resource systems and
    crappy DSL notinnernet.

    FreeBSD 14 uses git, not portsnap. I haven't had occasion to use git
    yet, so I'm not familiar with how that particular tool works in detail.

    Is the portsnap hierarchy in /usr/ports still useful, or does git just
    build the directory tree it needs when you clone/checkout a program's
    source?

    I doubt git(1) has any context of the state that portsnap stores. You can
    nuke it away, and start clean for use with git, or however you configure
    that name space.

    I'm only asking because if that 930MB isn't useful any more, I can
    delete most of /usr/ports/*, freeing up the space. (I'll keep
    /usr/ports/

    /usr/ports is just a read-only nullfs mount of an NFS mounted fs, which
    stores the git checkout of Ports, on my hosts

    --
    To health and anarchy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alastair Hogge@21:1/5 to Winston on Sun Nov 26 04:27:29 2023
    On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:54:47 -0500, Winston wrote:

    Back in FreeBSD 11, there was a partially populated /usr/ports hierarchy
    as created by portsnap. The idea (IIRC) was that one could descend to
    the top of whichever application you wanted in the file hierarchy, and
    then running make would pull in all the program's files and build it.

    Ahh portsnap was a great tool, was killer for low resource systems and
    crappy DSL notinnernet.

    FreeBSD 14 uses git, not portsnap. I haven't had occasion to use git
    yet, so I'm not familiar with how that particular tool works in detail.

    Is the portsnap hierarchy in /usr/ports still useful, or does git just
    build the directory tree it needs when you clone/checkout a program's
    source?

    I doubt git(1) has any context of the state that portsnap stores. You can
    nuke it away, and start clean for use with git, or however you configure
    that name space.

    I'm only asking because if that 930MB isn't useful any more, I can
    delete most of /usr/ports/*, freeing up the space. (I'll keep
    /usr/ports/

    /usr/ports is just a read-only nullfs mount of an NFS mounted fs, which
    stores the git checkout of Ports, on my hosts

    --
    To health and anarchy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)