From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 16:46:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA85106566C for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:46:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhelfman@experts-exchange.com) Received: from mail.experts-exchange.com (mail.experts-exchange.com [72.29.183.251]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C18FC16 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.experts-exchange.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.experts-exchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6997419FA; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=e-e.com; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:received:received:received; s=ee; t= 1300985203; x=1302799603; bh=R9IjkCLGW4L/T3MaQJb8RV86bLcjZufvI5S xEIWqLm8=; b=Ug2g/3WOQvmawmxzhnKCU3t2qu87dCQ9LTRjveYkwD6vwPGbx25 kS8daueDE47zrKLZzit02aRg+bULw1Ti3jyoD9vcEKktlt2cj8Of1rDwl+LUMbA0 CEHvDqSkspNd3E9hG1c6756IHm2VyBVmQs6+ECIDu/WQODNrSM/tXjys= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at experts-exchange.com Received: from mail.experts-exchange.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.experts-exchange.com (mail.experts-exchange.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BtSuJLN+QrnR; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from experts-exchange.com (unknown [72.29.180.81]) by mail.experts-exchange.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D8267419EF; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (nullmailer pid 59987 invoked by uid 1001); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:43:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:43:12 -0700 From: Jason Helfman To: Anton Shterenlikht Message-ID: <20110324164312.GI51385@eggman.experts-exchange.com> References: <4D8A2A79.4010908@FreeBSD.org> <20110324162321.GG51385@eggman.experts-exchange.com> <20110324164133.GA43818@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110324164133.GA43818@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE X-Living-The-Dream: I love the SLO Life! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Eitan Adler , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Peter Jeffery Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Ports Infrastructure Changes 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: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:46:44 -0000 On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:41:33PM +0000, Anton Shterenlikht thus spake: >On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:23:22AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:38:48AM -0500, Eitan Adler thus spake: >> >>you can then build category based directories with symlinks to the main >> >>location based on what categories >> > >> >My ports-mgmt/symports does something like this. It builds a full >> >directory tree of symlinks for the "secondary" categories. >> > >> >>I'm sure that something like this has been mentioned before. But I don't >> >>see >> >>what else is going to stop >> >>the categorization issue popping up all of the time. >> > >> >If we alphabetized the ports then there would be constant conversation >> >about how whether or not we should categorize them. >> > >> >-- >> >Eitan Adler >> >> When this change goes in, it may be a good idea to commit a documentation >> change, as well, that cleans up and adds the new categories here: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-categories.html > >I'm against this change. I've never had any problems >with the way ports are categorised. > >Also, refuse file is arranged in categories, >so I can, and often do, remove the whole categories >of ports from my /usr/ports, e.g. languages which >I don't speak, or java, or whatever. Spending time >and energy on rearranging everything in alphabetic >order is a waste of time and will not help me >a bit. I was referring to the change of the original idea of this thread regarding the splitting up of www, respectively. This thread has dealt with a plethora of changes. -jgh