From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Feb 12 12:10:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6193FFF for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA72677; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:10:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38A5BE37.1965CB96@gorean.org> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:10:31 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-0927 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Andrews Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <20000209210106.A14617@moe.htfdw1.ct.home.com> <00021212385600.02144@localhost.localdomain> <20000212111504.N5570@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000212142232.B14775@shadow.blackdawn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Will Andrews wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:15:04AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > *IF* people were to take this to ports@freebsd.org, they would have > > learned there was a discussion about a month ago in which the conclusion > > was to use one dir per port, but remove the subdirs w/in each ports > > subdir. > > I haven't heard anything from Satoshi about this being in stone, so you > aren't entirely correct.. Unfortunately I'm behind on my mail so I missed this discussion, but I certainly support the proposal to reduce the number of directories. I would say at minimum files patches and scripts could be combined. I would not like the idea of everything being in one directory, that seems too cluttered for me, especially for ports with many patches. One additional suggestion that may be controversial is to eliminate the non-english langauage ports from the ports-all CVS target, and from the default ports installation. Obviously we would want to prominently advertise the availability of these ports, and I don't want to even hint at their removal. My point is simply that no one user is going to use more than two or three of the non-english language ports, regardless of their native language. Therefore it makes sense to download only the ones you need. This would eliminate the need for cvsup refuse files altogether for many... Doug -- "Welcome to the desert of the real." - Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message