From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Nov 26 21:05:14 1995 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id VAA01053 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:05:14 -0800 Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA01014 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:05:07 -0800 Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id VAA01659; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:04:17 -0800 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:04:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199511270504.VAA01659@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: peter@jhome.DIALix.COM CC: ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (message from Peter Wemm on Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:24:23 +0800 (WST)) Subject: Re: Repository copy request: (part of) ports/net -> ports/www From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk * I decided to get lazy and write a script for the "special case" of the * non-tagged ports heirachy. Boy, am I glad Satoshi slapped me back to my * senses when I suggested he branch the 2.1 tree rather than freeze.. Yeah, it's the very nature of the ports tree that things move around a lot...we often discover what we did was not a good idea, new categories are born from overflowing parents, etc.... * BTW, I dont know how much of an issue it is to have a permanently * buildable ports tree, but I can move rather than copy the files all in * the same step. This would leave the SUBDIR tree broken.... Well, that's not much of a problem, it's not as important to have a buildable ports tree as the src tree (and that thing is often broken too :p). I thought the reason was more in the line of two people having to make a mistake to screw up the tree (which I didn't really understand anyway). Assuming it won't break anything for people who have things checked out (and I don't think it will), I think we can do it that way next time. The Gunslinger