Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:39:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: mladavac@metropolitan.at (Ladavac Marino) Cc: taavi@uninet.ee, mladavac@metropolitan.at, nick.hibma@jrc.it, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) Message-ID: <199905311039.MAA18732@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C1100276179630@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at> from "Ladavac Marino" at May 31, 99 02:43:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > With one big file it is next to impossible to build version 1.1.1 of
> > one
> > port and 1.1.2 of another.
> >
> > With current model i can check out specific branch for
> > all files/ports separately.
> >
> [ML] You have a point there :)
> Of course, you could check out the 1.1.1 version of the big
> file, build your port, and then the 1.1.2 version of the big file, build
> the other one, but this would be probably rather slow--some testing will
> be needed.
>
> Another possibility is one file per port, thus keeping the stuff
> in more manageable chunks. For this I don't even have to write
> anything--shar will do (something better than shar, something that keeps
> the file entries alphabetized and thus guarantees minimal diffs would be
> good, though).
>
> I hope we all agree that a reduction in file/directory count is
> desirable.
in fact i think the biggest problem, performancewise, is the presence
of multiple subdirs per port.
I'd be happy if we could build a backward compatible method that (in
order of importance)
1) allows short "files" such as those in pkg/ (with perhaps the
exception of PLIST and files/md5 for other reasons) to be
stored as Makefile variables instead of external files
(the backward mechanism would be to look at the file if a
matching name is not found;).
pkg/PLIST and files/md5, if really needed, could be moved to
the main directory.
This would remove one dir (pkg/) plus 3-4 files in 100% of the ports,
plus another dir (files/) in perhaps 90% of the cases.
2) keeps patches in the main directory instead of a separate subdir.
3) pieces from files/ are also moved into the main directory with
an adequate prefix (e.g. new-foo.c) to be stripped at install time
(it is my understanding that in most cases the copy from files/ to
the right place is done by explicit commands in the Makefile,
right ?)
This is trickier and maybe not worthwhile...
comments ?
luigi
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa
TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy)
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ngc99/
==== First International Workshop on Networked Group Communication ====
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905311039.MAA18732>