Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:47:45 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure Message-ID: <20030507024744.GG9450@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20030506152806.GB2058@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <3EB788CF.FEAEB664@breuninger.org> <20030506152806.GB2058@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:28:06AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Kris Kennaway, and lo! it spake thus:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Oliver Breuninger wrote:
> >
> > with an amount of 8.500 ports and 60 categories, it
> > should be better to use a tree orientation then a
> > flat structure.
>
> There is broad agreement that a 3-level structure is necessary (and a
[ Speaking entirely from the peanut gallery, since I don't have the
requisite expertise or, at the moment, time ]
I disagree. I think going further than we currently have means we need a
N-level structure. Almost certainly one where N can differ in different
parts of the tree. And possibly even one allowing mixing ports and
categories.
E.g., if [ABC...] are categories and [abc...] are ports:
ports/
A/
B/
C/
e/
c/
d/
a/
b/
D/
E/
[...]
The latter, though, may founder on the shoals of usability within the
filesystem metaphor, or require more in the way of front-end
construction. Ugly.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030507024744.GG9450>