From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 19:47:51 2003 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 4FFAD37B401 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 19:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from praetor.linc-it.com (hardtime.linuxman.net [66.147.26.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A167E43FA3 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 19:47:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-33-236-134.jan.bellsouth.net [67.33.236.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by praetor.linc-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D574E1543B; Tue, 6 May 2003 21:47:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 82B8B20F03; Tue, 6 May 2003 21:47:45 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:47:45 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20030507024744.GG9450@over-yonder.net> References: <3EB788CF.FEAEB664@breuninger.org> <20030506152806.GB2058@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030506152806.GB2058@rot13.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: Oliver Breuninger cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure 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: Wed, 07 May 2003 02:47:51 -0000 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"