From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 12 09:16:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E5716A54E for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:16:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5124695D for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:59:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 8BABA52F5; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:59:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:59:27 -0600 To: Aluminium Oxide Message-ID: <20060312085927.GA10004@soaustin.net> References: <1142054372.14978.256358031@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20060311060002.GA40638@xor.obsecurity.org> <1142079054.9555.256373197@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20060311174433.GB10679@soaustin.net> <1142152320.4225.256410010@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1142152320.4225.256410010@webmail.messagingengine.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: portsupgrade cvsup refuse file aware? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:16:44 -0000 On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:02:00PM +1030, Aluminium Oxide wrote: > I'm specifically focusing on international ports. If I keep a *complete* > ports tree it's 5? 15? many times the size of a tree with ports for only > 2 or three coutries or locales. The last time I did a check of the inode count it showed that the human-language-specific ports were less than 10 percent of the total. If something has changed drastically, please cite some statistics that show this. > I have had no problems with ports with only one language set maintained > as per refuse file restriction. So, what difference does it make? You've been lucky. Most people are not so lucky. Please go browse the INDEX file for a while and specifically look for dependencies on the japanese/ ports. They are there, in the "base" categories. Arguably, they shouldn't be, but until someone does the work to move thing around so that they don't, and gets everyone to agree that in the future we will restrict e.g. japanese/ ports to not be dependencies of any other port than in japanese/, then it will not be possible, in the general case, for all users, to drop the japanese/ ports. I assert to you that this problem has been considered by many people, in the past, many times, and the conclusion has always been that the problem is much more complicated than it appears. It involves both technical and political considerations. We are not trying to be obstinate here, we are trying to convince you that you do not sufficiently understand the problem. mcl