Date: 14 Feb 2000 18:47:02 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Subject: Re: multi-level categories Message-ID: <vqc900nmbbt.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Bill Fumerola's message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:57:00 -0500" References: <vqc4scoddtw.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <XFMail.000108122747.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> <20000108131719.A22210@futuresouth.com> <vqc66wrnxqb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000118172055.D457@argon.blackdawn.com> <vqcitzshzr9.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000214115757.B75380@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
* On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:58:18AM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
* > editors/emacs/Makefile
* > .../patches/patch-aa
* > .../patches/patch-ab
* > .../patches/patch-ac
* > .../patches/patch-ad
* > .../pkgCOMMENT \
* > .../pkgDESCR \ these stuff moved
* > .../pkgPLIST / from ${PKGDIR}
* > .../pkgREQ /
*
* I would prefer pkg_COMMENT or pkg.COMMENT to make things easier to read.
Actually I like pkg-COMMENT better. As for an underscore, no way in hell. :)
* I disagree. Can you give an example of a port with so man patches that
* things get too cluttered -- to the point of a simple ``ls'' not fitting
* on one screen? I don't see what having them in a different directory
* buys -- even with the `pm3-base' port an ls fits in a single standard
* 80x24 console; and the `pm3-base' port is a very extreme anomaly for us.
It's not only the number of patches, but the fact it changes locations
of other files due to its variable number. That makes it hard to my
eye to find things since ports' directories can look vastly different.
I tried creating directories (following your suggestion) with two
patches, five patches, etc. I still don't like them. ;)
* And going this path would save 1961 directories and 5883. More of course
* in the future.
In the future, we should simply think of a way of distributing one big
patch (sort of what Richard's suggesting)....
Replying to another mail....
* From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
* Not when there is an obnoxious amount of patches. I think that patches, files,
* and scripts should all be in one directory. I also know however that this would
* be a hyper-bitch for repository copying with only a little gain.
Well, the whole thing started (look at the subject line :) because we
need to repo-copy the entire ports tree when we go to multi-level
categories. So that's not really an issue.
I'd rather move scripts down to the main level (and call them
"script-pre-configure" or whatever) than move them to files. It is
sometimes easy to miss a script doing something when you're trying to
figure out why the Makefile isn't only doing what it says. Moving
them to files/ will only compound that problem.
We can move patches into files if you guys really want. Although I
don't see much gain in that, the names are quite obvious and it will
help reduce some directories.
-PW
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?vqc900nmbbt.fsf>