Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:20:54 -0700 From: Darryl Okahata <darrylo@sr.hp.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a two-level port system? Message-ID: <199906011520.IAA04464@mina.sr.hp.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:44:28 %2B1000."
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> wrote:
> How about storing each port as a single file in ar(5) format, which is
> unpacked into the directory structure when make'd? ar(5) is a text
> format, which means it can easily be managed by CVS, which includes
> a tool for manipulating its contents - ar(1).
This isn't all that different from the existing *.tar.gz port
files. If you use those, you get all the advantages of your approach,
plus fewer disadvantages:
> Benefits:
> - The ports tree would become ~2500 inodes and ~~32MB.
> - The entire ports tree is still available on the machine.
- No need to change port process to handle ar files.
- No need to CVS commit ar files. (BTW, CVS can also handle binary
files, so ASCII vs. binary is a non-issue.)
- Smaller size than ar files.
>
> Disadvantages:
> - Unpacked ports will use about twice as much disk space (3 times if
> you include the original CVS archive).
--
Darryl Okahata
darrylo@sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
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?199906011520.IAA04464>