Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:37:57 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Let's make the packages/ dir look clean! Message-ID: <28421.796509477@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Mar 95 04:44:57 PST." <199503291244.EAA04523@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> My suggestion is that package names should be the format > > <name>-<major>[.<minor>[.<patchlevel>]].tgz This sounds good to me, though I might ask whether or not it would also pay dividends if we were to seize this opportunity to CATAGORIZE the packages at the same time. We should come up with a <pkgdir>/<catagory> scheme where the packages are dumped according to where they came from in the ports hierarchy. Using a LINKS type of scheme, it should also be possible for a package to link itself into multiple catagories and thus provide a de-facto "ueberpackage" scheme like Paul T. was talking about - my installation program can just get the top level directory names (some of which will represent ports catagories and some which won't) and show the various packages within it as the contents of the ueberpackage. Comments? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28421.796509477>