Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:39:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Subject: Re: files/patch-* pathname separators Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404251825120.808-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <20040425225220.GB8498@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, David O'Brien wrote:
> Then at least use ':' vs. '::'.
find /usr/ports -print | grep '::' | wc
3616 3616 207833
If we do choose to go this route, we are really going to thrash a
lot of users' disks who track the whole ports collection -- not to
mention the CVS servers. And never mind the fact that several hundred
ports PRs will have to be reworked on-the-fly, although we are just
barely keeping up with them as it is ...
IMHO these costs need to be weighed vs. the benefits.
Also while grepping, it appears that there are 76 ports that use
the -devel convention, versus 3 that use the -snap convention, so
even though there would be some thrashing, it would be nowhere near
as bad as a path separator change -- especially since we can make
the presumption that many, if not most, end-users aren't using the
-devel versions anyways.
But in both of these cases, I'd really like to see us come to one
conclusion on each, do whatever we need to do, and then close the
books on each topic for good. Again IMHO, we have many more
pressing problems in the ports collection that need to be addressed:
5.x compilation problems and stale PRs, to name the most important.
mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0404251825120.808-100000>