Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:23:13 -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: <200510211623.13878.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051021223958.GA19955@soaustin.net> References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <200510211519.47370.ringworm01@gmail.com> <20051021223958.GA19955@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 21 October 2005 15:39, you wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:19:47PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > 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? > > Then PLEASE SUBMIT PATCHES. Tested ones. Involving portsmon. Involving > the build cluster. Involving marcusom tinderbox. Involving FreshPorts. > Involving everything in bsd.*.mk. Involving fixing up all the dependencies > after all the thousands of repocopies. > > You will be submitting thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lines of > patches to do so, invoving sh, awk, sed, perl, python, and SQL -- that I > know of. There are probably others. > > Now: I am not going to discuss this issue any further until I see those > patches. > > People, you just have No Idea how much work you are talking about here, > just to fiddle around with organizing ports into directories on a physical > disk, which I will continue to restate my opinion until I am blue in the > face that is the wrong problem to solve _anyway_. > > The _right_ problems to solve are searching and browsing. If you solve > those problems correctly, the physical layout on disk becomes hidden as > an implementation detail and no one but hardcore ports developers ever > has to think about it again. > > And you don't have to regression test thousands of lines of patches to > do so. > > This is at least the 20th time this particular idea has been floated. > It hasn't gotten any better the last 19 times. Please go back and read > the archives. I'm done discussing it. > > mcl You seem to have your feet well planted on this issue, probably for good reason. What about a /usr/ports2 multilevel directory with softlinks to ports in /usr/ports??? I fiddle with this a bit, if it looks good I'll put something together as a port for you to take a look at. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510211623.13878.ringworm01>