From owner-freebsd-ports Thu May 27 8:17: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from maildns.FSBDial.co.uk (maildns.fsbdial.co.uk [195.89.137.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E569158A1; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:16:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dlombardo@excite.com) Received: from [212.1.149.86] by maildns.freenet.co.uk (NTMail 4.30.0008/NT0619.00.8ceac940) with ESMTP id vkgkgaaa for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:55:17 +0100 Message-ID: <374D5E48.15A2D82B@excite.com> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:01:28 +0100 From: Dean Lombardo Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: a two-level port system? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I apologise if this has been discussed before. The ports collection seems to be growing at alarming rates. On one hand, this is very good; on the other, it has the unfortunate downside of having to store ten billion little files on one's hard drive. The current size of the ports collection is 300+Mb (the output of du -ks /usr/ports); the actual size could be greater, considering that most of the files are smaller than 512 bytes. Now this is perhaps a silly thought, but wouldn't it be more sensible to have just one Makefile for each port? All such a Makefile would have to do is download its port skeleton (on demand), and then do a make in that skeleton's directory. After that, everything should be the same as it is now. Well, the ports collection is manageable now (although it takes AGES to download/cvsup), but will it be in the future? Just a thought. Dean To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message