From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Aug 3 11:07:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09499 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from localhost.my.domain (ppp1692.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.249.156]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09488 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:07:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA27510; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:08:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.my.domain: tim owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:08:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: tim@localhost Reply-To: ac199@hwcn.org To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Useful hack or just weird? In-Reply-To: <14759.893575431@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > You be the judge.. This little hack lets the ports collection install > "stubs" rather than full binaries, the mission in life of each stub > being to essentially commit suicide by installing the relevant package > on top of itself and then reinvoking the real binary with the original > arguments. There are too many ports. Too many people would compain (either justly or unjustly, doesn't matter) that "oh! oh! all these little files are taking all my inodes and using all my diskspace". However, if this went onto a separate partition... Hmm... :) The other obvious problem is updating the 1600 odd ports we have right not to support this. I would expect a lot of bugreports going along the lines of "I typed ``xxzzyyzz'' but the xxzzyyzz port didn't install itself! What's wrong!?". Not to mention all the ports installing identically-named executables we have. > for it. Then you just invoke this executable as you normally would > (perhaps after rehashing your shell) and it should come up after the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ooh. For something probably directed at newbies, that's a heavy request. OTOH, maybe all newbies use bash (which doesn't need rehashing usually). > X+EXECNAME?= ${PKGNAME} Ah. An attempted magic update of all ports. Perhaps EXECNAME+=${PKGNAME}, but I don't think ?= is a good idea. > END-of-port-stub.sh Probably would have been better to have the stubs call some other more central script. This more central script could more easily be customized by the user (instead of having to customize 3-4 thousand little stubs). -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message