Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:26:56 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: multi-level categories Message-ID: <20000214182656.A76484@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002141728520.2582-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com>; from Doug@gorean.org on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:57PM -0800 References: <vqcitzshzr9.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002141728520.2582-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:45:57PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > I also agree that "patches" should be its own directory, in part > for the reasons you mention here. I still don't see it. What is the big clutter people are finding? Am I the only one with my Xterms set to 80x24 or larger? While some may find a packages/ directory just "feels nice and cosy" remember what our goal here is -- reduced directories and files, each directory contains a CVS/ directory and another 3 files. Thus by keeping patches (which are *NICELY* prefixed) in the main dir, we save 5 inodes alone. > Hrrmm..... I can't help thinking that we are leaving too many > exceptions behind, especially when you're talking about so few To me this contradicts what you said above as patches/ is a contradiction w/o logic or reason -- other than that's how we've always done things. Please people don't loose sight of our goal -- when we have 6000 ports, think how much savings we would get by not having a patches/ directory. This conversion is going to be painful -- do we really want to do it again soon? -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) 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?20000214182656.A76484>