From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Apr 4 02:22:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA19109 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (sunrise.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA19099 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05276; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:22:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:22:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199604041022.CAA05276@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com CC: ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <6104.828612908@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com) Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * > Errr. I'm sorry I totally forgot about it, I hate all those little * > port collections! I wish we can merge them all together! :( * * Considering how small the ports collection is, I have nothing against * that idea at all. Any no votes? Last time I mentioned it, someone said it's the number of files that affects the size of supscan, not the amount (in megabytes), and that was the reason of the ports collection being split up. I think it was Rod that mentioned it. I'm not exactly sure about the memory situation of freefall and what the coeffecient (assuming it's a linear function) but I think the trouble is a bit too much, having to update supfiles all over the place every time we add something. How's the memory for freefall doing these days? Memory prices are dropping very quickly these days, you can get 32MB of non-parity memory for <$500 now! :) Satoshi