Using CVS [was Re: Cvs variant in portfile]

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Aug 15, 2007, at 18:51, markd at macports.org wrote:

> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>
>>>> By the way, it should be noted in the new guide that export  
>>>> tarballs
>>>> are preferred over checkout ones.
>>>> I don't need all of those .svn and CVS, I just want the sources.
>>>
>>> You mean to state that it is preferred that port authors checkout  
>>> from
>>> CVS, tar up only the source directories, and put it on
>>> macports.org?  As
>>> opposed to using fetch.type cvs?
>>
>> I think he means it is preferable to tar up the output of "svn
>> export" (or whatever the equivalent CVS command is) and put it on
>> macports.org rather than tar up the output of "svn checkout" (or
>> equivalent CVS command) and put it on macports.org.
>
> I see.  I didn't know that.   But if that is true, I would think it is
> safe to assume that fetch types "svn" and "cvs" do an "export" or  
> export
> equivalent.  Is that true?

I have no idea what kind of thing the svn and cvs fetch types fetch,  
and I don't think it matters much. We're talking about when someone  
manually grabs something out of a svn or cvs repository, tars it up  
and uploads it. A CVS working copy contains a "CVS" directory in  
every directory which contains extra administrative stuff that we  
would have no use for. A Subversion working copy contains a ".svn"  
directory in every directory with administrative stuff, plus a  
complete copy of every file in the directory, meaning that if someone  
tars up a Subversion working copy it'll be more than twice as large  
as taring up an svn export would be, for absolutely no benefit in our  
case. That's the point.