From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 16 13:25:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF57D16A436 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:25:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-unix@earthlink.net) Received: from pop-satin.atl.sa.earthlink.net (pop-satin.atl.sa.earthlink.net [207.69.195.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC6243D76 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:25:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsd-unix@earthlink.net) Received: from fl-71-54-28-212.dhcp.sprint-hsd.net ([71.54.28.212] helo=kt.weeble.com) by pop-satin.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FfzUR-00007j-00; Tue, 16 May 2006 09:21:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:21:55 -0400 From: Randy Pratt To: Matthew Seaman Message-Id: <20060516092155.a6e323c2.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4469B8FE.8020904@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20060515222815.GA2535@picobyte.net> <20060516070750.df210cfd.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> <4469B8FE.8020904@infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shaun@inerd.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New category - ports/packages specific tools? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:25:42 -0000 On Tue, 16 May 2006 12:35:26 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > Randy Pratt wrote: > > On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:28:16 +0100 > > Shaun Amott wrote: > > > >> There are lots of nifty tools in ports for handling ports and packages. > >> It would be nice if they were all in one, easy to find place. > >> > >> I think there are enough of these kind of ports to warrant a new > >> category. What does everyone think about this? > >> > >> I'm not sure on a name yet -- "freebsd", "ports", "tools", and > >> "portutils" are my initial ideas. > >> > >> Possible candidates for the new category: > >> > >> devel/portcheckout > >> devel/portlint > >> devel/portmk > >> devel/porttools > >> misc/porteasy > >> misc/portell > >> security/portaudit > >> security/portaudit-db > >> sysutils/newportsversioncheck > >> sysutils/pkg-orphan > >> sysutils/pkg_cutleaves > >> sysutils/pkg_install > >> sysutils/pkg_install-devel > >> sysutils/pkg_remove > >> sysutils/pkg_rmleaves > >> sysutils/pkg_trackinst > >> sysutils/pkg_tree > >> sysutils/pkgfe > >> sysutils/port-authoring-tools > >> sysutils/port-maintenance-tools > >> sysutils/portbrowser > >> sysutils/portdowngrade > >> sysutils/portmanager > >> sysutils/portmaster > >> sysutils/portsearch > >> sysutils/portsman > >> sysutils/portsnap > >> sysutils/portupgrade > >> > >> Plus maybe (not ports-specific, so perhaps not): > >> > >> net/csup > >> net/cvsup > >> net/cvsup-mirror > >> net/cvsup-without-gui > >> > >> Have I missed any? > > > > sysutils/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex > > > > I think this is an excellent idea. It would make it much easier > > to point new users to a category for ports tools. I'd vote for > > this to go ahead regardless of the number of ports. > > The first step surely is a virtual category. I'm happy if anyone wants to > add 'ports-mgmt' to the CATEGORIES line of p5-FreeBSD-Portindex Another one: sysutils/pib The value of a virtual category is not intuitive on a local system. For example, hamradio is a virtual category but if you look in /usr/ports there is nothing that indicates that it exists. This is what most new users would do if they don't know to cd /usr/ports && make search key=hamradio. If you don't know that a virtual category exists, then its pretty hard to find. I could be mistaken but I don't believe there is even a mention of virtual ports categories in the Handbook (Porters Handbook, yes). Man 7 ports doesn't mention virtual categories either. I'm sure there's some good reasons for doing a two-step category addition and I don't want to start a bikeshed (we've seen enough of those lately). I'm just not sure how a user finds out about them. Randy --