From owner-freebsd-ports Mon May 31 6:53:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7DA14BF1; Mon, 31 May 1999 06:53:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07622; Mon, 31 May 1999 15:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA56022; Mon, 31 May 1999 15:53:07 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:53:05 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Andrzej Bialecki Cc: Taavi Talvik , Rasmus Kaj , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? Message-ID: <19990531155305.A55875@bitbox.follo.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Andrzej Bialecki on Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:02:50PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:02:50PM +0200, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Folks, how about _admitting_ finally that our ports collection is a > database? We wouldn't need anything else than standard system tools to > maintain a ports.db file containing all that we want as DB records. Rule #1: Any change to the ports collection must not make it harder for the ports committers to keep the ports collection up to date. Rule #2: Any change to the ports collection must not make it harder for people to help out with the ports collection. Rule #3,4, and 5: Read rules #1 and 2 again. Rule #6: It is nice (but not essensial) if the ports become faster and/or smaller than today. Rule #7,8,9, and 10: Read rules #1 and 2 again, and understand their impact. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message