From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Sep 28 22:14:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA17133 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA17127 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA08464 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:14:39 -0700 (PDT) To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Uh oh.. Time to take another look at the packages collection! Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:14:39 -0700 Message-ID: <8460.875510079@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk The FreeBSD-current packages collection currently requires 713MB, not counting the filename information itself (which, on CDs, is stored very wastefully and generally accounts for another 30-40MB in cases like this where you have hundreds of files). I don't need to tell anyone here that 750MB does *not* fit on a single CD, and even with 4 CDs for 3.0 we're going to run into problems just organizing it. So, as I see it, we have two alternatives: 1. Come up with a "reduced set" of packages which we'll provide that way, the goal being to provide 650MB or less of "quality" packages rather than going for the kitchen-sink approach. 2. Come up with a way of splitting the packages collection into multiple pieces, each piece having its own INDEX file and such. Any other suggestions? Jordan