Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:45:18 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.ORG>, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: final call: VERSION variable Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003301643350.58164-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20000330193323.B7713@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Will Andrews wrote:
> This has nothing to do with the number of inodes that port skeletons take
> up. IIRC, however, symlinks do not take up inodes, so using a symlink
> system would not affect the number of inodes used by an installed port.
I'm not sure whether the above assertion is true, but in any case most
people don't have 3187 ports installed, so the number of extra inodes
would be negligible compared to the size of the ports collection
itself. We probably wouldn't need symlinks for every single file in the
PLIST - if a port installs its own directory we can just symlink the
directory and the contents can only appear once.
Having said this, the idea still scares me too :-)
Kris
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0003301643350.58164-100000>