Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:53:15 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: multi-level categories Message-ID: <20000109175315.G96061@florence.pavilion.net> In-Reply-To: <vqc4scoddtw.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> References: <XFMail.000103161438.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> <vqc4scoddtw.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 03:04:27AM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
>
> Note that for most ports, this will mean ${FILESDIR} and ${PKGDIR}
> will entirely dissapear since md5 is the only one in ${FILESDIR}.
> This will be what you'll be getting with an "ls" with a typical port:
>
> 1 CVS/ 1 Makefile 1 PKGCOMMENT
> 1 PKGDESCR 6 PKGPLIST 1 md5
> 1 patches/
>
> As opposed to what we have now:
>
> 1 CVS/ 1 Makefile 1 files/
> 1 patches/ 1 pkg/
>
> (Hmm, maybe I should call the package files "pkgCOMMENT" etc....)
>
> What do you think?
>
On a slightly different note... it would be really good if the
pkg_install program could ask if you wanted to uninstall a previous
version at install time. Part of why this isn't possible at the
moment is that the /var/db/pkg hierarchy doesn't contain the actual
package name anywhere, only the 'pkgname-version'. If the structure
of the ports directory is seriously being reconsidered, isn't it
time to reconsider the structure of the /var/db/pkg hierarchy as
well to make it more future proof?
Joe
--
Josef Karthauser FreeBSD: Take the red pill and we'll show you just how
Technical Manager deep the rabbit hole goes. (http://www.uk.freebsd.org)
Pavilion Internet plc. [joe@pavilion.net, joe@freebsd.org, joe@tao.org.uk]
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?20000109175315.G96061>