From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 25 16:39:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE77516A4CE; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9305243D1D; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:39:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 40F4E1472F; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:39:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:39:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: David O'Brien In-Reply-To: <20040425225220.GB8498@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Alexey Dokuchaev cc: Maxim Sobolev cc: Clement Laforet cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Eivind Eklund cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Subject: Re: files/patch-* pathname separators X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:39:51 -0000 On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > Then at least use ':' vs. '::'. find /usr/ports -print | grep '::' | wc 3616 3616 207833 If we do choose to go this route, we are really going to thrash a lot of users' disks who track the whole ports collection -- not to mention the CVS servers. And never mind the fact that several hundred ports PRs will have to be reworked on-the-fly, although we are just barely keeping up with them as it is ... IMHO these costs need to be weighed vs. the benefits. Also while grepping, it appears that there are 76 ports that use the -devel convention, versus 3 that use the -snap convention, so even though there would be some thrashing, it would be nowhere near as bad as a path separator change -- especially since we can make the presumption that many, if not most, end-users aren't using the -devel versions anyways. But in both of these cases, I'd really like to see us come to one conclusion on each, do whatever we need to do, and then close the books on each topic for good. Again IMHO, we have many more pressing problems in the ports collection that need to be addressed: 5.x compilation problems and stale PRs, to name the most important. mcl