Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:53:36 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] what do we do with picobsd ? Message-ID: <20060201085336.GB824@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060131105224.A57698@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20060131105224.A57698@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2006-Jan-31 10:52:24 -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >I know it is not ideal to have a piece of code in the main tree >that depends on an external port. Yet, better than have it broken. >2. commit the updated script, fix one or two sample targets, > and remove the others (all of this is in src/release/picobsd) "make release" requires mkisofs and includes a perl and a python script (though I'm not certain they are needed). Given this, I think option 2 is acceptable, >3. remove the entire src/release/picobsd tree and move it to > a port (question - do we want the old content of src/release/picobsd > in ports/foo/picobsd/files ? In any case, we need a place in > some repository to store these things) The picobsd CVS tree is 5.8MB so a repocopy would not be out of the question. A checked out version of src/release/picobsd is currently 688KB and there are two ports with files directories larger than that (and a third that only slightly smaller). There is also a precedent for having the port "sources" in the files directory. I think the biggest killer for option 3 is that the ports tree is not branched so paralleling RELENG_x source trees would be "difficult". -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060201085336.GB824>