From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 21 22:18:17 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-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 7E65C16A41F
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:18:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ringworm01@gmail.com)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.194])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E2B43D46
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:18:16 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ringworm01@gmail.com)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 8so303559nzo
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id;
	b=lh5nY59o0fs8MTq1OitK1cPH2WMLvPyEVt6u+SVi1QCkU+P4cq0AdtXmimNGGhcDrpVWfH5s6h0guyQlwMb+W8NysqwMcTh7BE1Oeh1prFhqO6ZQolPu4u3iZ5nRP4sVHFHX3M4ZZ9jsKzTfGMoVIsg2cJWA8I+8z4AtWE81IR4=
Received: by 10.36.177.16 with SMTP id z16mr2034125nze;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.1.10? ( [71.102.14.129])
	by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 22sm1109937nzn.2005.10.21.15.18.13;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com>
To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>,
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:19:47 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <200510211454.41789.ringworm01@gmail.com>
	<20051021220910.GA18988@soaustin.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051021220910.GA18988@soaustin.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200510211519.47370.ringworm01@gmail.com>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:18:17 -0000

On Friday 21 October 2005 15:09, you wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:54:41PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > My .02 cents worth - - - Would the ports system handle adding another
> > level to its directory structure?
>
> This is the biggest FAQ about the ports collection and the answer is
> always going to be the same: NO.  We have nearly ten thousand lines of
> automated tools which have the two-level assumption hardwired into them.
> Fixing this would require many, many, hundreds of hours to do the necessary
> rewriting and regression testing.
>
> Reading back through the mailing lists would have shown you this.
>
> mcl

Seems like the quantity of ports available will eventually hit a plateau
with the current two level directory structure.  No one is afraid to update
the basic OS when its needed, even when it means using an entirly different 
file system ( ie. UFS1 -=> 2 ),  why be so scared when it comes to the ports 
system?

-Mike