svn & new pkg system

[Fbsd8]

Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?

Is the new pkg system going to totally replace the pkg_ system in the
base 9.2-Release?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:25:22 -0500, Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?

No.

Subversion is a large system, with a ton of dependencies, and there's
basically _nothing_ to gain by having to spend extra effort trying to
keep an imported version up to date.

Having svn-X.0 in the source tree, imported at great expense of time and
effort, will provide exactly _zero_ benefits if the underlying format of
the repository changes (like subversion likes doing really often).

On the other hand, installing subversion from the ports or even from the
precompiled packages is always going to work, and we're always going to
have a port for it as long as it's a tool that's required to work with
the source tree of the system.

> Is the new pkg system going to totally replace the pkg_ system in the
> base 9.2-Release?

I think so. But I have to check to be sure.

[Robert Huff]

Giorgos Keramidas writes:

> > Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>
> No.

[good reasons for not including subversion ellided]

On the other hand ...
The traditional - and I believe still canonical - way of
updating the system is to recompile from source.
I know I am not alone in feeling the system is substantially
incomplete if it does not come with all the tools necessary to do
that.
(Not slighting freebsd-update (don't know enough about it to
have an opinion); just pointing out it has limitations.)

Respectfully,


Robert Huff

[pete wright]

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>

not sure about svn, but this port has recently been commited:

http://www.freshports.org/net/svnup/

it is a csup replacement.

-pete

--
pete wright
www.nycbug.org
@nomadlogicLA

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2013-03-09 22:04, Robert Huff <rober...@rcn.com> wrote:

> Giorgos Keramidas writes:
> > > Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
> >

> > No.
>
> [good reasons for not including subversion ellided]
>
> On the other hand ...
>
> The traditional - and I believe still canonical - way of updating the
> system is to recompile from source.
>
> I know I am not alone in feeling the system is substantially
> incomplete if it does not come with all the tools necessary to do
> that.
>
> (Not slighting freebsd-update (don't know enough about it to have an
> opinion); just pointing out it has limitations.)

This has been traditionally true with CVS, which was also a complex
piece of software, but still merged periodically into FreeBSD src.

I think it's always a small annoyance when things break away from
'tradition', but on the other hand tradition shouldn't be able to put
a stop to moving along or act as an impediment for doing our 'real'
work. And the real work of the team is to develop FreeBSD, not to
develop a version control system. There's a lot of know-how and
development happening in the main Subversion development process;
a lof of experience that we do not necessarily need to duplicate
in our own team to do what we like best: that is, develop FreeBSD.

It's understandable that having to install a package to check-out
the sources is a diversion from previous practice, and it may be
somewhat annoying -- like every change is annoying at first. But
the package is not going to go away and it won't stop working, at
least as long as we are using it ourselves to develop the system.

So other than the difference that now the sources of the VCS used
for development are not part of src/, conceptually there isn't a
lot of difference from before. The previous state of things was:

FreeBSD developers use CVS to check out the sources, and
develop the system itself. CVS is available [as part of the
base system] to everyone else who wants to grab a copy of
the source tree.

WHat happens now is quite similar, except for the bracketed text:

FreeBSD developers use SVN to check out the sources, and
develop the system itself. SVN is available [as part of the
official packages] to everyone else who wants to grab a copy of
the source tree.

[Fbsd8]

Your thinking is way to narrow. Besides source, svn can also grab a copy
to the ports tree or just a single port. This a much quicker and a more
flexible approach than using portsnap.

No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If it
can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the base
system.

Just because developers us it is no reason to make life difficult of
those who are not devolopers and have other uses for it.

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:

> No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If it
> can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the base
> system.

Giorgos did when he said "Subversion is a large system, with a ton
of dependencies" which translates to a lot of work to keep it up to date in
the base system, and all sorts of fun and games when other things using
those dependencies need a newer version.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith <st...@sohara.org>

[Fbsd8]

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
> Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:
>
>> No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If it
>> can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the base
>> system.
>
> Giorgos did when he said "Subversion is a large system, with a ton
> of dependencies" which translates to a lot of work to keep it up to date in
> the base system, and all sorts of fun and games when other things using
> those dependencies need a newer version.
>

And how is that any different from any other package or pkgng situation.

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:39:50 -0400, Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:18:04 -0400
>> Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No body has made a case for NOT including svn in the base system. If
>>> it can be a port there is no reason why it can not be included in the
>>> base system.
>>
>> Giorgos did when he said "Subversion is a large system, with a ton of
>> dependencies" which translates to a lot of work to keep it up to date
>> in the base system, and all sorts of fun and games when other things
>> using those dependencies need a newer version.
>
> And how is that any different from any other package or pkgng situation.

Imagine what happens when library libfoo is a dependency of subversion,
and they are both imported into the base system. At the same time there
are 2-3 incompatible versions of libfoo in the ports.

When libfoo is part of the base system we have to:

a) Make sure that it works for the base system version of subversion.

b) Other programs from ports do not accidentally link with the wrong
version of the library from base.

c) All programs that subversion uses (possibly plugins and extensions
that are now part of base, but part of the packages) use the right
'mix' of libraries.

This gets fairly complicated and a brittle _very_ very fast.

On the other hand, the inconvenience of having to install subversion
from ports is offset by the fact that _everything_ it depends on and
everything that depends on _subversion_ itself, is now handled in an
homogeneous manner, with exactly the same amount of effort that we would
have to spend anyway to maintain it in the ports.

[David Brodbeck]

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Giorgos Keramidas
<kera...@ceid.upatras.gr>wrote:

> Having svn-X.0 in the source tree, imported at great expense of time and
> effort, will provide exactly _zero_ benefits if the underlying format of
> the repository changes (like subversion likes doing really often).
>

I agree with your other points, but I think it's worth noting that this
particular one isn't actually a concern when it comes to retrieving source
code. The subversion *client* doesn't have to care about the server's
repository format. All SVN 1.x clients work with all SVN 1.x servers; you
just may miss out on some advanced features or optimizations if there's a
mismatch, since it'll settle on the lowest common denominator.

The *working copy* format does change between client versions, but that's
easily resolved by checking out a fresh WC.

[Michael Ross]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:57:25 +0100, Giorgos Keramidas
<kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:25:22 -0500, Fbsd8 <fb...@a1poweruser.com> wrote:

>> Is svn going to become part of the base system in 9.2-RELEASE?
>
> No.

I'd like to reference a thread on the @stable list here:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-March/072765.html

"svnup is a lightweight, dependency-free, BSD licensed program to pull
source files from a Subversion server."


Regards,

Michael