From owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 11 12:38:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B0016A4CE; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:38:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr (postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAC843D3F; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:38:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (unknown [82.233.239.98]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC6FC0FA; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:38:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FA4A412C; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:35:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:35:53 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= Message-ID: <20041211123553.GM79919@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20041207231019.GL79919@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20041208082000.GP79919@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <41B730B5.5040100@jonny.eng.br> <20041208224605.GU79919@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <41B860DA.5080309@jonny.eng.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <41B860DA.5080309@jonny.eng.br> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: jdp@FreeBSD.org cc: mux@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvsup-mirror rewrite X-BeenThere: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Distributions Hubs: mail sup ftp List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:38:08 -0000 On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:27:38PM -0200, João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote: > > [...] Well, I won't be deeply convinced that using ${PREFIX}/${PORTNAME} as installation target it the cleanest thing to do while the core team won't direct us to do so. In fact, I think your arguments are not so bad and I'm going to adopt your point of view for a first try in the code rewrite (anyway changing installation location is not so hard), even if it's totally breaking hier(7) IMHO. But for now, I'm quite harassed that both hierarchies are used in the same time ; I think this is going to be a mess if port maintainers are able either to spread the port files accross the standard hierarchy (hier(7)) or to simply put them all in ${PREFIX}/${PORTNAME} depending on their own policy without further control. I would like to hear the opinion of people such as kris@ about this subject and know if it has already been discussed by FreeBSD authorities or if it is judicious to ask core team otherwise. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen jeremie@le-hen.org