Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:19:47 -0700 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510211519.47370.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051021220910.GA18988@soaustin.net> References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <200510211454.41789.ringworm01@gmail.com> <20051021220910.GA18988@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510211519.47370.ringworm01>