From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 20 19:40:03 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE2E16A41A for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:40:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout3.cac.washington.edu (mxout3.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.166]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE19813C46E for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:40:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from hymn07.u.washington.edu (hymn07.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.53]) by mxout3.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.06) with ESMTP id l6KJe2Op032704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40:02 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn07.u.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id l6KJe2Dd032181 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40:02 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [192.55.52.10] by hymn07.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40:02 PDT Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-PMX-Version: 5.3.2.304607, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.20.122234 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='NO_REAL_NAME 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' Cc: Subject: Re: Proposal for another category in INDEX: common_deps X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:40:03 -0000 On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Doug Barton wrote: > Garrett Cooper wrote: > > > I just ran a quick analysis with a Perl script and found that there > > are a number of similarities in the build_deps and run_deps fields in > > the INDEX files -- so many that I think that items common to both > > build_deps and run_deps should be isolated and put into a new category > > called 'common_deps': > > How will this benefit us? > > Doug Reduce amount of processed text. If you read the log I posted there are a large number of what I refer to as 'excess characters'. These are the duplicate characters in both BUILD_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS. -Garrett