From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jun 16 22:05:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA08542 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:05:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08529 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:05:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08075; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:05:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Atipa cc: "Justin M. Seger" , ports@FreeBSD.ORG, asami@cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Size of a port... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:23:17 MDT." Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:05:10 -0700 Message-ID: <8071.898059910@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Actually, this is one of my pet peeves, probably to an irrational level. > Those ports maintiners are just too damn good! Try this: "Doctor doctor, it hurts when I do this!" :-) > I can see several advantages, but none that _require_ that layout. For > instance, CVS-ability, indexing, describing, patching, building, etc., OK, let's take a slightly different tack. What specific design did you have in mind? Please include working examples so that one can actually see whether your ideas have tangible merit. That's no more or less than was required of me when I first designed and proposed the ports collection. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message