From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 13 08:44:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D994B16A402 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 08:44:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61CE13C43E for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 08:44:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492731A3C19; Sun, 13 May 2007 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DA8E552C45; Sun, 13 May 2007 04:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 04:44:04 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <20070513084404.GA35648@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070512004209.GA12218@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <17989.8202.624522.136573@bhuda.mired.org> <20070512090935.GA13929@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20070512193302.GA24673@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070512214422.GA88480@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20070512222435.GA28981@xor.obsecurity.org> <4646C249.6070103@infracaninophile.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4646C249.6070103@infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: DPS Initial Ideas X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:44:05 -0000 On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 08:46:17AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > The problem is that maintaining the INDEX is expensive and/or tricky. > > p5-FreeBSD-Portindex comes close but seems to have some wrinkles. > > If you'ld just tell me what you perceive the wrinkles to be, then I'd > have a fighting chance at addressing them, which I would be glad to do... I only looked today so I didn't have time to fully investigate things, which is why you didn't hear from me directly yet :) Basically there are some differences (extra whitespace, etc) that are cosmetic but which make validation against the full INDEX build more difficult, but the major one seems to be that ports that change their name dynamically (depending on e.g. installed ports detected, or changes in build options) do not seem to have this reflected in the incremental index. Kris