Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:50:26 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change Message-ID: <p0602043dbc23c617e45c@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <200401090333.44516.max@love2party.net> References: <p0602041abc1660a416d0@[128.113.24.47]> <200401090333.44516.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote: >Garance wrote: >At 2:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote: > > >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). Eh, I often find it harder to understand a change if it has to be spread around a lot of small files, but I can see your point. And I do expect that my idea will have to support ways to break some of the information out of the single-new-file, for the case where the single-new-file gets too large and unwieldy. I am thinking that it could have an '#include' ability, for instance. I'm not completely set on how this should work, but I suspect it will be useful to have some sort of escape hatch. Still, my goal is that at least 90% of the ports will wind up as just two or three files. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0602043dbc23c617e45c>