From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Jun 1 18: 8:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from aaz.links.ru (aaz.links.ru [193.125.152.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4710437B400 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from babolo@localhost) by aaz.links.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03318; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 05:09:30 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <200206020109.FAA03318@aaz.links.ru> Subject: Re: Splitting up ports. In-Reply-To: <20020602100945.B553@k7.mavetju> from "Edwin Groothuis" at "Jun 2, 2 10:09:45 am" To: edwin@mavetju.org (Edwin Groothuis) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 05:09:30 +0400 (MSD) Cc: ports@freebsd.org From: "."@babolo.ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Edwin Groothuis writes: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 03:53:01AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote: > > Edwin Groothuis writes: > > > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 03:15:03AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote: > > > > Brian Dean writes: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 01:05:22AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote: > > > > > > And another end :-) of tree: > > > > > > I propose to group dependant ports > > > > > > in one ports directory to base port, for example: > > > > > > ports/x11-wm/sapphire/sapphire > > > > > > ports/x11-wm/sapphire/sapphire-themes > > > > > > ports/x11-wm/sapphire/sapphire-another-themes > > > > > > (no sapphire-another-themes in ports now) > > > > > > See ports/38593 Three level ports: Patch and new ports > > > > > > as another example with some patch. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a good way to tuck the over 700 p5-* ports into their own > > > > > directory within each category. I.e., /usr/ports/devel/p5/*, etc. > > > > Good point. > > > > p5-* ports are not programs but modules > > > > to expand given language (mostly?). > > > > So hierarchy as > > > > > > > > ports/lang/perl5/archivers/... > > > > ... > > > > ports/lang/perl5/devel/... > > > > ... > > > > > > IMO, keeping them sorted on functionality is more important. So > > > ports/net/p5/... > > > ports/mail/p5/... > > > > > > After all, they are already sorted in the categories "net perl" and > > > "mail perl" where perl is only a administrative category and net > > > and mail are the functional categories. > > Let's look at any p5-* port. > > For example ports/databases/p5-SQL-Statement > > Assume I do something with SQL. > > Need I in p5-SQL-Statement? No. never. > > I need (may be) it ONLY if I program > > something with perl5. > You forget that the ports are sorted on their functionality, not > on their requirements. So to counter your example, if I'm interested > in database programming under perl, I'm not interested in the (insert > random other usage for perl modules, like networking or XML processing) > modules, but they would still be there. If you're interested in > SQL, that's database related so you can find it in ports/databases > (functionality!), there you can find in everything which is databases > related, even other databases than the one you defined. OK Functionality of all p5-* ports is: extend perl. some (ports/audio/p5-*) in audio direction, some (ports/databases/p5-*) in some another direction. perl is not requirement in this ports - perl is primary target. The audio, databases are secondary targets after main - extend perl. Just imagine ports/lang/CPAN ports tree :-) -- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message