From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 15 06:13:37 2005 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 495C516A420; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:13:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AB543D62; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:13:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id ECFC82F6F; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:13:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:13:31 -0500 To: Wes Peters Message-ID: <20051015061331.GA31258@soaustin.net> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> <8347452E-908C-4BE5-AC8F-E6378C1BF17C@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8347452E-908C-4BE5-AC8F-E6378C1BF17C@softweyr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports 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: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:13:37 -0000 On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:59:09PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be > cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- > something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? I do _not_ recommend we attempt to do the 1688 (one thousand six hundred eighty-eight) repocopies, even if anyone was insane enough to volunteer to try to do so. It would take months to sort through the damage to the depedency tree, during which time the ports tree would effectively be broken. No matter how much we tested it first, we would never get them all. And, of course, we'd have to have the tree frozen to run the regression test, or the test would become instantly obsolete the second we ran it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. mcl