From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 13 11:56:28 2004 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 7E86E16A4CE; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CDF43D48; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:56:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sem@ciam.ru) Received: from ppp9-15.pppoe.mtu-net.ru ([81.195.9.15] helo=ciam.ru) by mail.ciam.ru with asmtp (Exim 4.x) id 1BDT58-0001xi-AZ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:56:26 +0400 Message-ID: <407C37E7.3080906@ciam.ru> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:56:39 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garance A Drosihn References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "Brian F. Feldman" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:56:28 -0000 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 11:16 AM -0400 4/13/04, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > >> >> ... will cost us ease of use in creating and updating ports, >> certainly, because the developer cannot simply type >> `diff file{.orig,file} > patchfile' and be finished with it. > > > There would be an extra step (or two) here, yes. It may be quite appreciably for me as a ports developer. When I create or update a port I need to diff, test and to diff again and agian. And we'll get more complex port creation/updating process. So we'll make developers' life harder. >> and I also would not be able to just >> `grep ^whatever ports/foo/*/pkg-plist' in the common, >> single-plist case. Of course, the tool wouldn't make it >> that much harder to do something similar, but it would >> be twice the typing. > > > We could maybe hide that typing behind a make target, similar > to `make search index=xxx' and `make search key=yyy' Of course we could. But we can't to change all mighty-unix-tools with any target anyway. And if we'll make a search target quite complex we'll force users to study more documentation to understand how it works instead of make their unix knowledge works. So we'll make users' life harder. Apart I think it'll make ports install porocess slower because of parsing and extracting. Do you think saving inodes outweigh all unconveniences we'll get? > Well, I am guessing this might be taken as a "NO" vote... :-) Sorry, my vote is "no" too. -- Sem.