From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 01:45:04 2003 Return-Path: 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 64DD016A4BF; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 01:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dirk.moria.org (tpr-bras-130-33.telkom-ipnet.co.za [165.165.130.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B59644003; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 01:44:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nbm@dirk.moria.org) Received: from nbm by dirk.moria.org with local (Exim 4.20) id 19tkJe-000DIu-Jd; Mon, 01 Sep 2003 10:45:38 +0200 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:45:38 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20030901084538.GA50811@mithrandr.moria.org> References: <3F3FF917.8040903@ciam.ru> <20030817221023.GA68086@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030831175032.Q732@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030831175032.Q732@znfgre.qbhto.arg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Independent Online X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE i386 X-URL: http://mithrandr.moria.org/ Sender: Neil Blakey-Milner cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Debian pool-esque distfile subdirs (Was: Re: Three-level ports) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 08:45:04 -0000 On Sun 2003-08-31 (18:08), Doug Barton wrote: > I can already hear people thinking, "Why not just have one big ports > directory?" Two reasons off the top of my head. First is file system > performance. UFS starts to bog down at about 10k directory entries, and > we already have 9k+ ports. The second reason is cvsup refuse files. I > (and I know lots of others) put all the language ports, and some other > stuff that I know I won't ever want in my refuse file to avoid thrashing > the cvsup servers. > > There are of course pluses and minuses to this approach, but I think > it's worth considering. The ports collection has been headed in > increasingly complicated directions over the past 3 years or so. > Personally, I prefer the idea of building a simple, robust foundation, > then giving people tools to do more complex, elegant things. While we're on the subject - anyone have any reason besides "it'll prevent people from using their existing distfiles" to doing like Debian and putting distfiles into subdirectories based on their first letter? I almost die when I type 'ls' by mistake in my communal distfiles location. I more often delete things because my habitual 'ls' is taking so long than because I'm keen on saving space. I'll be more than happy to write a script to let people convert to using it - especially mirror operators. I'm not even sure most people use their own backup or override master sites, but I can write a script again for those operators who want to provide symlinks to the distfiles for a few weeks while people update their ports system. MASTER_SITE_DEBIAN_POOL already has the magic to do this with MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR, it should be reasonably easy to make DISTSUBDIR do this. Also, we can keep DISTSUBDIR, allowing things that want to live together to live together - distfiles/zope/ -> distfiles/z/zope/. I'm willing to write the bsd.port.mk patch and the scripts, if there're no "that totally sucks and it'll never get in" and at least one "hmm, we'll take a look at it" messages from members of portmgr. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@mithrandr.moria.org