Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:53:22 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <20000910175322.G70549@bonsai.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <20000910175639.F47559@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chimesnet.com on Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:56:39PM -0400 References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <200009082243.e88Mh9V05579@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000910175639.F47559@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:56:39PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: # > "One package per port" is the First Principle of the Ports Collection # > for a good reason. :) # # We either need to reconsider that, or something like: # # ports/mail/postfix+sasl # ports/mail/postfix+mysql # ports/mail/postfix+ldap # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+ldap # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+sasl # ports/mail/postfix+ldap+sasl # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+ldap+sasl If done properly these would all just be a directory and a Makefile with all the work being done in the master port. The biggest problem with the current scheme is inode consumption. Aside from expecting a single port to build multiple packages, are there other ways to reduce the inode consumption and stick with the current OPOP paradigm? -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000910175322.G70549>