From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Jun 1 22:18:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA2337B403 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 22:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdn-ar-003dcwashp147.dialsprint.net ([206.133.21.83] helo=moo.holy.cow) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17ENkn-0001sb-00; Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:18:10 -0700 Received: by moo.holy.cow (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D201D50FF9; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:20:47 -0400 From: parv To: Edwin Groothuis Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Splitting up ports. Message-ID: <20020602052047.GA99785@moo.holy.cow> Mail-Followup-To: parv , Edwin Groothuis , ports@freebsd.org References: <20020602092819.A553@k7.mavetju> <200206012353.DAA28623@aaz.links.ru> <20020602100945.B553@k7.mavetju> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020602100945.B553@k7.mavetju> 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 in message <20020602100945.B553@k7.mavetju>, wrote Edwin Groothuis thusly... > > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 03:53:01AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote: > > ... > > 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 [modules unrelated to sql] , 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!), (i paraphrased "[modules ... sql]" above.) i agree that ports should be organized on their functionality ... but why is java a special case having its own separate physical category but not in "lang" along w/ all other computer languages? { i suppose java the language is in its own _first_class_ directory because of large number of various implementations (57[0]) which outdo ruby & python, the languages, related ports (27 combined). but still... } ...whenever i see that, i get irked to see various perl modules, for example, distributed as they are; they should have been in their own first class category/directory, along w/ perl5 of course. [0] numbers are from a 6000+ tree, not 7000+, and from java & lang subtree. most of kde, gnome, emacs, languages other than english, etc. related ports are omitted. - parv -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message