Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:07:58 -0400 From: David Wassman <dmwassman@cox.net> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: portsnap-0.9.5 Message-ID: <200510072207.58651.dmwassman@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20051008002822.GA14686@soaustin.net> References: <200510071900.45244.dmwassman@cox.net> <4346FF22.1090901@freebsd.org> <20051008002822.GA14686@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 07 October 2005 08:28 pm, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:05:06PM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > > > I can use the refuse file to avoid them in cvsup but I am unaware if > > > there is a way to do this with portsnap. > > > > The latest version of Portsnap in the FreeBSD base system (in FreeBSD > > 6.0) has support for refusing parts of the ports tree. I will be > > updating the version of portsnap in the ports tree shortly after FreeBSD > > 6.0 is released -- I want to allow some of the new code to get more > > testing first. > > The main problem is with the Ports Collection, not the tools. There is > no mechanism to guarantee that some arbitrary port does not depend on > something in one of those language categories (e.g. no guarantee that > any category is a 'leaf category'). In particular, at least japanese > is _not_; IIRC french and german aren't either. > > If we decided to go down the route of requiring some categories to be > leaf categories, we introduce fragility (have to monitor all those > commits) and then there's also an enforcement problem. For the ~5% > reduction in size, it's never seemed worth the hassle. > > You're in unsupported territory if you venture in there. Good luck. > > mcl Good point. Never had an issue but I can see where you could. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510072207.58651.dmwassman>