Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:08:58 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: creating a meta port ports-mgmt/pkg_upgrade Message-ID: <4B16911A.6020609@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <b269bc570912010924i63d0791cj10c47e7d2c344e02@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B15212C.5060201@bsdforen.de> <b269bc570912010924i63d0791cj10c47e7d2c344e02@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Freddie Cash wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>wrote: > >> ... >> >> Would such a thing be accepted? I feel sceptical, because it does >> not even depend on several packages and the real solution in my >> opinion would be if people searched the ports tree with >> "make quicksearch cat=ports-mgmt" instead of browsing the file >> system. But they don't and I know of no way making them do it. >> > > You could always split out the common code into a library port, and make > that a dependency for the pkg_upgrade and bsdadminscripts ports. Yes, I could. Do you think it makes sense to split a package that is smaller than 100kB into several smaller packages? -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B16911A.6020609>