From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Sep 9 17: 9: 6 2000 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 874F437B422 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 17:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bonsai.hiwaay.net (tnt6-216-180-4-137.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.137]) by mail.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e8A091710457; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:09:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from steve@localhost) by bonsai.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.9.3) id e8A090637117; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:09:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from steve) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:08:59 -0500 From: Steve Price To: Will Andrews Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909190859.O2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org> <20000909182451.M2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909183209.E632@radon.gryphonsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000909183209.E632@radon.gryphonsoft.com>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:32:09PM -0500 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:32:09PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: # > 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?"). This is a pro. # 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). This on the other hand is debatable. IMHO a single master port and a bunch of satellite ports is easier to maintain. Perhaps the real problem is not with having multiple ports, but rather with a consistent naming convention and the fact that the current scheme spreads files all over the place which sort of goes back to the converse of number one above. The first is easy to spell out but not really that easy to enforce. The latter is what needs to be addressed. We have two proposals thus far. Let's converge on one that doesn't have the cons listed below. # # Cons: 1) More complex bsd.port.mk. 2) Doesn't work well with the current package build scripts. 3) Possible more complex port Makefiles. 4) Introduces extra steps into the build process. Nevertheless we have really two conversations going on here. None of this has to do with a new ports upgrade system. -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message