From owner-freebsd-ports Mon May 31 6:41:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9EC14BF1 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 06:41:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sprice@hiwaay.net) Received: from localhost (sprice@localhost) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA23290; Mon, 31 May 1999 08:41:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 08:41:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price To: Ladavac Marino Cc: "'Luigi Rizzo'" , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: a two-level port system? (fwd) In-Reply-To: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C1100276179631@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 31 May 1999, Ladavac Marino wrote: # [ML] This would offer an advantage over the existing system # only if all ports are updated to the new schema, which is a lot of work. # shar approach could be easily mechanised, and requires no changes in the # makefiles or the ports themselves. OTOH, shar offers no advantages to # the folks who build all ports (or most of them) because they end up # creating all directories anyway. I think Satoshi is the only such # person :) You can add me to that list. I'm pretty sure Simokawa-san keeps the whole tree around, Justin Seger is another, everyone that I've ever setup a FreeBSD box for, and the list goes on. The point being that quite a number of people will find it useful to have all the ports on their box for any number of reasons besides the fact that they build packages. IMHO any proposed solution that increases the pain of doing so will probably meet with some resistance. But don't let that discourage you. Code it up and I have a couple of boxes I'll give it a whirl on. :-) -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message