From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Aug  2 16:56:12 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22762
          for ports-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22753
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA16965; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: gkshenaut@ucdavis.edu
cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: /usr/ports ?? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:29:06 PDT."
             <199708022329.QAA00230@myrtle.bogs.org> 
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:55:07 -0700
Message-ID: <16961.870566107@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Regarding the perl and tk/tcl ports debate-- perhaps I'm being
> naive here, but would it help to have all (and only) ports installed
> under /usr/ports? This would be somewhat similar to /usr/contrib
> in certain other systems.

That would be a start, though the distfiles would also have to be
reasonably standardized on or users who've installed "src" while
only temporarily net connected (e.g. they bring the machine in to
work, install it, go away again) will be sorely confused when their
builds fall over.

A more closely coupled ports collection could be a godsend for the
bloat vs anti-bloat debate, but there are a lot of logistical issues
to handle before it can (and it must) be as transparent as /usr/src.

					Jordan