From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jun 2 18:42:39 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 C3CE837B41D for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from babolo@localhost) by aaz.links.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01685; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 05:43:01 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <200206030143.FAA01685@aaz.links.ru> Subject: Re: Splitting up ports. In-Reply-To: <20020602114341.C553@k7.mavetju> from "Edwin Groothuis" at "Jun 2, 2 11:43:41 am" To: edwin@mavetju.org (Edwin Groothuis) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 05:43:01 +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 05:09:30AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote: > > 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. > > No, functionality of all p5- ports is to let you do something while > using the perl-language. Using perl is not the aim, using perl is > a way to do it. I do not analize aims, I just analize tools. Aim can differ - it is subjective > This kind of reasoning will lead to more extreme things like: > Textproc/libxml is a library to extend the capabilities of other > programs to access/process XML files, so it belongs in lang/ and > textproc/linux-libxml is a library for the linux-emulation to extend > the capabilities of other linux programs to access/process XML files, > so it belongs in emulators/ and textproc/p6-libxml is a module for > perl to extend the capabilities of other perl programs to access/process > XML files, so it belongs into in perl/. Yes, pure idea is similar to your examples. > You see what kind of scattering it would give if you would do this? Do not afraid of thinking > I can change your reasoning a little to make it view the way the > ports-structure is designed now: > databases/p5-pgsql is a direction, databases/py-pyPgSQL is a > direction, ruby-dbd_pg is a direction, accessing the database using > one of these programming languages is the goal. I understand you and how port structure goes into curent state. Just a time to rethought. > > Just imagine ports/lang/CPAN ports tree :-) > No thanks. With CPAN, Their goal is to extend Perl. With the FreeBSD > ports collectio, their goal is to extend the capabilities of FreeBSD. Subjective point of view. The same module in CPAN and in ports has different goal. OK. That is reason not to take goal in account. -- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message