From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 13 10:51:45 2004
Return-Path: <owner-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 C588516A4CE; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.server.rpi.edu (smtp0.server.rpi.edu [128.113.53.41])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4F95F43D48; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu)
Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47])
	by smtp0.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3DHpiEd027470;
	Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:51:44 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu
Message-Id: <p06020416bca1d822f140@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org>
References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:51:43 -0400
To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org>
From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca)
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:51:45 -0000

At 11:16 AM -0400 4/13/04, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>There are distinct advantages to separating content in
>different files: ....  This does not mean that I believe
>the proposal to be a bad idea: I think it is a good idea
>as a separate "source package" tree generated from the
>"ports" tree.

I would also say that I don't understand this comment. If
"the real" ports tree is not going to use the pkg-data ideas,
then why bother generating a second copy of the ports tree?
That just gives us more work to do, with zero benefits
("zero benefits" because everyone will still be using
"the real" ports tree).

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu