Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:16:04 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com> Cc: Taavi Talvik <taavi@uninet.ee>, Rasmus Kaj <kaj@raditex.se>, dlombardo@excite.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a two-level port system? Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9906011108510.6849-100000@bragg> In-Reply-To: <199905312210.SAA29830@spooky.rwwa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Robert Withrow wrote:
> taavi@uninet.ee said:
> :- CVSup is definitely easiest way to keep well defined collection of
> :- files up to date.
>
> Yes, but who ever uses even a *small* fraction of the available ports?
> For a end user system or even a local server to try to keep the
> ports files up to date seems like a lot of wasted effort and space.
For most users, running cvsup is all that's required, and it only takes about
5 minutes even over a slow modem. That's not much wasted effort, and the port
tree isn't THAT huge (especially if you only check out the collections you're
interested in). In terms of inodes it's quite hungry, though. This is the
source of the only real "problem" with the current port structure, IMO (e.g.,
updating from a local CVS repository takes ages because of CVS's inefficiency,
which I wouldn't have thought would be the common case for most users)
> What I was suggesting was this:
>
> cd /usr/ports/<category>
> make <whatever>
>
> This would ftp the port for whatever, then continue just as if the
> port was already there. Seems like one just need add a "portfetch"
> target. And deal with dependencies...
devel/portcheckout pretty much does this already, as somneone else pointed
out.
> Another thing I'd like to see would be to have the "fetch" target look
> in another place after /usr/ports/distfiles and before trying to do
> a ftp. That way I could mount the cdrom and the port system would look
> there before doing the ftp.
It can do this already, I do believe.
> A final thing I'd like to see would be to have a more regular naming
> convention for ports that includes the version...
Do you mean the name by which the package is installed in /var/db/pkg, or the
name of the port directory under /usr/ports? There are already naming
conventions in place for the former (see the handbook), and I don't think it's
appropriate that the latter includes the version in the directory name - it
would generate too much update traffic no matter how the collection is
synchronised.
Kris
-----
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes."
-- Unknown
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?Pine.OSF.4.10.9906011108510.6849-100000>