Date: 22 Oct 2004 16:07:02 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/www is too full Message-ID: <447jpiqzyx.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <16761.17813.713808.55826@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <16761.12913.961269.232207@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410221128530.16582-100000@pancho> <16761.17813.713808.55826@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> writes: > Mark Linimon writes: > > > There is also the school of thought that we ought to identify > > what problem we are trying to solve, and if it's merely a > > 'search/browse' type of problem, then we should fix our > > search/browse interfaces and leave the directory layout alone. > > > > Unfortunately, this school of thought seems to have only one > > adherent, which is myself :-) > > Coung mr in. Well, I agree too, but I wouldn't try to *stop* somebody from redefining the directory structure, either. I haven't spoken up because I think it looks like a bikeshed. > It occurs we may be looking at multiple "problems", which may > or may mot have compatible solutions. Quite true. > Someone mentioned finding a > (popular) port with a known name; If you know the exact name, "make search name=" does a good job right now. > I often want to look at all > programs which do <foo>, where FOO is far more detailed than the > existing categories support. That's a hard problem, because it can get into semantics. I don't really see any new approaches to the problem that will do better than "make search key="
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447jpiqzyx.fsf>