On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Robert Elz wrote:

>   | Saves three dirs for each pkg, plus three more CVS dirs => >6000 dirs that
> 
> Why are the CVS directories needed (by most of us) anyway?   As I understand
> it, their contents aren't useful?  Couldn't they just be excluded from the
> tar.gz file altogether?

I am not sure, but I believe that some grab the tar file first, because it
is quicker than a cvs checkout, but then they later use CVS to update
it. (But maybe there could be a CVS-based packages tree and a packages
tree without CVS. But this may add more work than its worth.)

I think it would be better to just use one patch file. Can't the package
maintainers just maintain their various separate diffs themselves? (Or
does this add extra work also, because the CVS should be used to manage
everything?) (Or if two package trees were used, one could have one patch
file and no CVS info which could be simplly created from the other tree
which could have numerous patches and CVS info. But again, this may add
more problems/work than its worth.)

(Has anyone discussed using rsync instead of cvs to update source or
packages? If so, when and where was this discussed, so I can find
it. Thanks.)

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://www.reedmedia.net/