From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 14 23:23:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF9A16A4CE; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:23:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9D043D48; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:23:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 63FA3148F3; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:23:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:23:35 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <20041114132542.N34355@qbhto.arg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Mark Linimon Subject: Re: portupgrade problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:23:36 -0000 On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Doug Barton wrote: > Another (and I think very useful) way to look at this would be to > declare certain ports _directories_ "leaf" directories in the sense that > ports whose frameworks live within them should not be depended on by > other ports. Right, that's what I was implying, although my sentence structure was probably bad. When I last looked at the problem in March, in the existing 'really are leaves' categories there were ... 680 ports. With the repocopies, japanese would add another 430 today. So, about 10% in all, and that's why I didn't really push for it at the time. mcl