From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 8 02:08:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 A482C16A41F for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:08:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmwassman@cox.net) Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net (eastrmmtao01.cox.net [68.230.240.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B2743D49 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:08:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmwassman@cox.net) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (really [70.171.62.169]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051008020809.ZKR13165.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@[192.168.1.3]>; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:08:09 -0400 From: David Wassman To: Mark Linimon Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:07:58 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200510071900.45244.dmwassman@cox.net> <4346FF22.1090901@freebsd.org> <20051008002822.GA14686@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20051008002822.GA14686@soaustin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510072207.58651.dmwassman@cox.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: portsnap-0.9.5 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, 08 Oct 2005 02:08:21 -0000 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