Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:46:02 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new ports selection option of install Message-ID: <18322.878064362@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:24:34 MST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.971028102255.18239A-100000@roguetrader.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Is it just me, or is the ports selection option, as it stands in 2.2.5 > (and last I checked in 3.0) rather... useless? I think it's just you. Nobody else has complained, and I certainly find it damn useful to have the *entire* ports collection stored as a single 4.3MB file which can be unpacked at any time (and I use it all the time, even though it does take a fair while to unpack all those files). As the ports collection grows ever more interdependant with time, I also see this trend as only heading away from the direction of splitting it up so it would be my recommendation that you simply get used to the load time and disk space usage of a full ports tree. C'mon, it's still a lot more than you get with Solaris. :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18322.878064362>