Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:34:27 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Should every package also have a port? Message-ID: <19990821173427.A73931@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-ports,
[ Not on this list, please cc: replies to me ]
Are there any rules that say that if something is available as a package
then it should also be available as a port?
The FreeBSD Documentation (FAQ, Handbook, et al) will shortly be available
as FreeBSD packages, suitable for pkg_add(1).
I'm wondering whether it's worthwhile creating a port skeleton for each
one of these packages, where
% cd /usr/ports/fdp/faq [1]
% make "FORMATS=html html-split" LANG=en_US.ISO_8859-1 install
would just run the equivalent of
% pkg_add ftp://.../faq-en_US.ISO_8859-1-html.tgz
% pkg_add ftp://.../faq-en_US.ISO_8859-1-html-split.tgz
and where "make package" would be a no-op. Also, there could be no
checksum file, because the documentation packages would be rebuilt daily
(or, at the very least, weekly).
Personally, I don't think this is worth the hassle. But I'm not a ports
guy, so I figure the final call is in your hands.
Thoughts?
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990821173427.A73931>