Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:19:01 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Dan Papasian <bugg@bugg.strangled.net> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Message-ID: <00021212385600.02144@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20000209210106.A14617@moe.htfdw1.ct.home.com> References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <20000209210106.A14617@moe.htfdw1.ct.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000, Dan Papasian wrote:
> An even more radical approach, and more controversial, would
> be to remove /usr/ports entirely and use the concept of source packages.
>
> pkg_add -r aumix would install the binary, and something along the lines of:
>
> pkg-source_add -r aumix would download the source, patches, and whatever else
> needed.
This is the direction that my thinking is headed. Let the actual developers
keep things (pretty much) as is. Repackage the distribution into a multi-level
hierarchy.
The top level would be a description of what's available.
{basically the DESCR files}
The second level would be the details.
{the rest of the stuff in /usr/ports/xxx/yyy/}
The third level would be the distribution tarballs.
{files presently fetched to /usr/ports/distfiles}
The ports maintainers would commit to the expanded tree just as they do now.
However, instead of distributing that tree, we would derive (automatically) the
level 2 tarballs and distribute them. The top level Makefile in /usr/ports/
would expand the level 2 build tree and continue down into it just as it does
now.
--
Richard Wackerbarth
rkw@Dataplex.NET
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00021212385600.02144>