Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:52:21 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover <end@endif.cjb.net> To: Paul Chvostek <paul+fbsd@it.ca> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/www is too full Message-ID: <20041022165221.3c66232a@zork> In-Reply-To: <20041022201425.GA36702@it.ca> References: <20041022074529.GN10363@k7.mavetju> <41791AF7.2050009@vonostingroup.com> <200410221824.12294.benlutz@datacomm.ch> <20041022201425.GA36702@it.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:14:26 -0400 Paul Chvostek <paul+fbsd@it.ca> wrote: > > There are lots of ports that really truly belong in multiple > categories; ftp/wget and ftp/curl are excellent HTTP clients, > mail/rlytest verifies an element of an SMTP security policy, etc. The > problem is that having the port directory named for its "primary" > category is just so damned convenient. > > One solution might be to model the packages/ tree. Store all ports in > ports/All/, then have *all* the categories broken out as their own > directories, with symlinks pointing back into ../All/portdir/. Then > you could have multiple symlinks, easily maintained by the meta info > in ports/INDEX. > > A single directory with 12000 subdirectories in it may be unruly ... > and we'd have to fix oddities like hydra, jags, replay, etc ... but it > would provide for the most flexible expansion, and the symlink tree > would provide an equivalent interface to folks comfortable with the > current setup. > > Thoughts? > Population. cvs (and probably cvsup) do not handle symlinks well. You would have to have a script populate symlinked ports into the categories by hand. -- Robin Schoonover (aka End) # Just think -- blessed SCSI cables! Do a big enough sacrifice and # create a +5 blessed SCSI cable of connectivity. # -- Lionel Lauer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041022165221.3c66232a>