From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 25 20:00:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA12037 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:00:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA11915 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.4/8.7.3) id EAA07531; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:12:27 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:12:27 GMT From: Adam David Message-Id: <199702260412.EAA07531@veda.is> To: paul@demon.co.UK (Paul Richards) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Perl5 modules References: <87914htuw1.fsf@originat.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Can we *PLEASE* rethink how this is done in ports. A lot of Perl >programmers complained at the time this was wrong and I'm complaining >again. It also sucks badly that there are a great many ports scattered all over the place with names matching p5-* Why not simply bundle them all together in ports/pl/ and of course strip p5- from the names. (ports/p5/ if preferred) >The only argument I heard in favour of the current scheme was that if >some hacker was looking for a package to do something, say web >related, then they'd probably go and look in www. That can be done with categories. >It would be so much easier if "real" perl programmers could go to >/usr/ports/lang/perl_cpan/ and see immediately if the package they >want is part of the ports collection or not. Someone decreed that having a 2-deep hierarchy is a useful convenience, and the third level would interfere with that. -- Adam David