From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Feb 10 16:53:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ddg.com (eunuch.ddg.com [216.30.58.66]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416C445CC for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (128.83.177.83) by mail.ddg.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:49:56 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: Darryl Okahata Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:26:11 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200002102358.PAA03763@mina.sr.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200002102358.PAA03763@mina.sr.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00021018491700.00777@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Darryl Okahata wrote: > Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > > Fundamentally, I object to being required/expected to maintain a copy of a > > large amount of information that does not impact my system. > > I don't care about the patches to XXXXX unless I decide to install it. > > Well, this is certainly a valid complaint. However, I'm not sure > of the source of this complaint. Is it that you don't want the ports > tree, or that you don't want the entire ports tree just to get a couple > of ports? > > If you don't want the ports tree, you don't have to install it. I well recognize how it all works. But, from a practical point, no system is complete w/o some ports. I am concerned with the POV of a "typical" user. We need to make our system (even) more "user friendly". The typical user needs to be aware of the resources available w/o being burdened with stuff they don't need. Not everyone has T3 net access and a tera-byte of HD. :-) > > Similarly, I think that it is a stupid design to require everyone to keep the > > ENTIRE history of a file (per cvs). I have CD roms which have the old > > versions in case I need to reference them. > > Huh? The "ENTIRE history of a file" isn't stored below > /usr/ports. There may be some CVS control information for each port > (and you can make an argument for getting rid of this information, for > some cases), but it's just control information. You are obviously just "checking out" from the CVS tree. I was referring to those who actually keep a CVS tree. (It is rather necessary when you are near the "bleeding edge" -- XXX just broke YYY and you need to revert a few files to yesterday's version. However, my point is that, although I NEED the recent history, and the "Library of Congress^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFreeBSD NEEDS to maintain the total history, I doubt that any of the developers have had any reason to examine distant history for more that a file or two. I see no reason for the world-wide community to be FORCED (see how CVS stores things) to keep the ENTIRE history online and on numerous development platforms. There has to be a better way to utilize resources. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@Dataplex.NET To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message