From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Mar 30 15:26:57 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from viper.lovett.com (hub.lovett.com [216.60.121.161])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BD06B37B93C; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:26:51 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from ade@lovett.com)
Received: from ade by viper.lovett.com with local (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 12aoKv-0003up-00; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:26:49 -0600
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:26:49 -0600
From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: final call: VERSION variable
Message-ID: <20000330172649.C14845@lovett.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003292033520.32828-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <vqcu2ho4p6h.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <vqcu2ho4p6h.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:28:54AM -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:28:54AM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> Ultimately we want to go to
> something like gnu stow (the /var/opt/pkgname/{bin,share,lib...} and
> the symlink tree from /usr/local) and there is no reason why we have
> to restrict ourselves to one version per port.

Gah!  How on earth are we going to implement that?  

Also, we've been talking about reducing the number of inodes in
the port skeletons, whereas this will (at least) double the number
of them for installed programs.

This is a very scary proposition.

-aDe

-- 
Ade Lovett, Austin, TX.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message