From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 24 12:46:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC216A4CE for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A23443D2F for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:46:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4OJkCIX008079; Mon, 24 May 2004 15:46:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040524193815.21b18d80@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <20040524193815.21b18d80@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:46:11 -0400 To: Alexander Leidinger , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) Subject: Re: Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:46:21 -0000 At 7:38 PM +0200 5/24/04, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:07:34 -0400 >Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >> b) create a new directory at the root directory of >> the ports collection. That directory would be >> called "Patches", and inside would be a directory >> for each category. Inside each Patches/category >> directory would be a single-file for each port >> in that category, where that single-file would >> have all the "ports-collection patches" for the >> matching port. > >ATM you can checkout one (new/updated) port from cvs into >any non-"ports/" directory and it will work just fine >(depending on the dependencies of the port). I don't see >how this is possible with [the above] approach. Hmm. Well, that is a good point. My intent is that would work, but at the moment I don't have any specific idea of how I'd want to implement that. As an end-user of ports, what I'd really like to do is 'cvsup refuse' the ENTIRE Patches tree, and then just download the patches for the ports that I'm actually building. However, I was assuming that the end-user would still be working in a copy of the entire ports-collection, so I was just going to download into ports/Packages. Maybe that isn't the right idea. I was also thinking that the ports collection could possibly take the tactic of downloading "ports-related" patches the same way it presently downloads tar-files of the original source. That would have nothing much to do with the pkg-data ideas, but it would be another way to reduce the size of "tracking the ports collection", as the number of ports in the collection continues to grow. I mean, we are now over 10,000 ports, and I imagine that VERY few users actually care about all 10,000 of those ports. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu