Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:18:27 +0200 From: "wmbfmk@urc.tue.nl" <wmbfmk@urc.tue.nl> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami/=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=), ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Let's make the packages/ dir look clean! Message-ID: <199503301118.NAA07404@nietzsche> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:37:57 -0800." <28421.796509477@freefall.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > My suggestion is that package names should be the format > > > > <name>-<major>[.<minor>[.<patchlevel>]].tgz > > This sounds good to me, though I might ask whether or not it would also > pay dividends if we were to seize this opportunity to CATAGORIZE the > packages at the same time. We should come up with a <pkgdir>/<catagory> > scheme where the packages are dumped according to where they came from > in the ports hierarchy. Using a LINKS type of scheme, it should also > be possible for a package to link itself into multiple catagories > and thus provide a de-facto "ueberpackage" scheme like Paul T. was > talking about - my installation program can just get the top level > directory names (some of which will represent ports catagories and > some which won't) and show the various packages within it as the > contents of the ueberpackage. > Could there also be a scheme to make packages possible, which will group applications not on where they came from but to targets usable for a specific purpose. Examples would be: net-package -web browser -communication program (Seyon, minicom) -mail front end -news reader -pop client "FreeBSD-Works" :-) -tex -ispell -tgif -xspread -database program ... etc. These could be directories containing links to applications elsewhere in the packages tree. Marc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503301118.NAA07404>