From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 8 18:33:53 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 38E7516A4CE for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED2243D60 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:33:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from [212.227.126.161] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AemT6-00085M-00 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:33:48 +0100 Received: from [80.131.150.51] (helo=vampire.homelinux.org) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AemT5-0005Kf-00 for freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:33:47 +0100 Received: (qmail 4417 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2004 02:38:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fbsd52.laiers.local) (192.168.4.88) by 192.168.4.1 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2004 02:38:07 -0000 From: Max Laier To: Garance A Drosihn , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:33:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401090333.44516.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:e28873fbe4dbe612ce62ab869898ff08 Subject: Re: Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change 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: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:33:53 -0000 At 2:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote: I suspect I was too brief in my initial message. I had started > with a much-longer message, but figured everyone would give up > on it before trying to read it all... > > The simple-program is *only* for pulling information out of the > suggested new file. That's all it will do. You might run it > with a parameter of "patches", and it will create the directory > work/patches > and then fill that directory with files patch.001 through > patch.042. Then the standard port-processing would apply > *those* patch files, instead of each port (as it comes from > cvsup) containing a directory of patch files. Indeed, that makes it much more understandable. > >1) Changes are much harder to do: > > With the currently used scheme it's fairly easy to add a > > patch when needed. > > I do not expect this to get any harder. (of course, I might > be wrong on that) At least you have to do an additional export (from the big file) and (in the end) an import. > >2) Changes are much harder to track: > > On the contrary, changes should be *easier* to track. All the > information for any given port will be in two files. This will > not be true for all ports (particularly for ports which have a > lot of patch files). Look a the full quote: "changes might be spread all over the new big file", you can't come around this and it's a pain to read this (even - or especially - in a unified diff). > >3) It will get harder to create ports: > > I really do not expect this to happen -- particularly since > the simple-program will know how to find the appropriate > information for EITHER old-style or new-style ports. Thus, > it CANNOT be harder to do than it is now, because someone > can just do exactly what they do now and the makefiles will > handle it all. Yes, I got your idea completely wrong. Still, if you want to do this: I'd suggest to avoid to write new tools that need compilation, there are quite a few default unix tools that can do the work for you: tar, shar ... which are in the default install. The additional targets to bsd.port.mk could be done in a very small and clean way. -- Best regards, | max@love2party.net Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet