From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Oct 29 06:16:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA29724 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29716 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost) by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10299; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:16:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:16:20 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html In-Reply-To: <4042.846554473@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > This is something I want very much, in addition to recently > > changed/updated ports. Unfortunately, the current mechanism for > > generating the ports pages doesn't easily lend itself to such > > features. I have a little perl program that reads the ports > > INDEX file and spits out HTML, but the INDEX file contains no > > Hmmm. This seems like one of those problems which might be better > served through a cron job. Why not simply cache the previous day's > and previous week's INDEX files, doing a running diff each day which > generates the HTML? The problem is that a diff of the INDEX file is insufficient for detecting changed ports. (And personally I think this is at least as important as flagging new ports.) The only way I can think of for accurately representing changed ports is to dig through the entire ports tree. Of course, the easy solution would be to assume that a change should only be flagged if it represents an update version of a port, which will be reflected in the INDEX file, as opposed to a tweak. But what if a tweak fixes a critical bug such as a security hole? As far as the creation date, that information only has to be put in once and it *already is* standard practice to put it in. For new ports, there is no added cost, only a slight procedure change. For old ports, well, we can assume they are not new. -john == jfieber@indiana.edu =========================================== == http://fallout.campusview.indiana.edu/~jfieber ================