From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Sep 9 16:35: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from radon.gryphonsoft.com (mcut-b-167.resnet.purdue.edu [128.211.209.167]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F82737B422 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by radon.gryphonsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C567819C3; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:32:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:32:09 -0500 From: Will Andrews To: Steve Price Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909183209.E632@radon.gryphonsoft.com> Reply-To: Will Andrews Mail-Followup-To: Will Andrews , Steve Price , Neil Blakey-Milner , FreeBSD Ports References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org> <20000909182451.M2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20000909182451.M2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net>; from sprice@hiwaay.net on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:24:51PM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:24:51PM -0500, Steve Price wrote: > # I don't think the package format is in the least significant to the > # problem, except possibly the use of zip-like archives to only grab > # headers, and to perform some sort of package signing. These are both > # dealt with in the package format described and implemented in libh > # currently. > > We might want to rethink the package format at some point. I > don't think it is really important to the new package upgrade > mechanism either. However, laying it on the table and having > everyone nod their head that we won't be considering it as part > of our current focus *is* important. The package format is really unrelated to mechanisms using it, so long as we provide a consistent interface to the format. > Indeed it might be overkill. Let's look at it from a tradeoff > perspective. What are the pros/cons of the current 'one port, > one package' system wrt to the other proposals? Pros: 1) Fewer inodes. 2) Centralized option selection (no more "hmm, do I get option foo and option bar from port-foo+bar or port-foobar?"). And things are in the directories they really should be in. This also leads to centralized development (i.e. everything is edited in ONE directory). Cons: None. Other than more complex bsd.port.mk code, and having to modify some package building scripts and stuff like that. -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+ a--- C++ UB++++$ P+ L- E--- W+ N-- !o ?K w--- O- M+ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++++ h! r- y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message