Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:32:03 -0700 From: Yuri <yuri@FreeBSD.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs" Message-ID: <2a13db47-1ef4-41d0-9c89-97dbfdaf670b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <ZviotSm1errpSbv6@fuz.su> References: <ZviotSm1errpSbv6@fuz.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The ports tree would benefit from having more port categories representing meaningful fields some of which are emergent fields. Can we please get the portmgr@ approval for this addition? Thank you, Yuri On 9/28/24 18:09, Robert Clausecker wrote: > Greetings! I have just submitted a pull request adding a new category > "fs" for file systems and file system utilities to the ports > collection. See Github for the full patch set: > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/pull/302 If desired, I can > submit this as a DR or PR as well. The new category is populated with > some 126 ports (that's more than x11-clocks!) that look like they > might be file-system related. I was motivated to add this new category > when I noticed that many FUSE file systems were shipped as ports named > sysutils/fusefs-$foo, making sysutils/fusefs- a pseudo-category for > FUSE filesystems. If that's the (anti) pattern, why not make it > offical and add a true category for file system ports? Turns out there > are a lot more than one might think. I hope that with this move, we > can reduce the load on devel and sysutils (the two most popular > misspellings of misc) and make file-system related ports easier to > find. For a full list of affected ports, see the list of commits > attached to the pull request. If you would like to not have your port > moved to fs, please comment or send me an email. I would like to > kindly ask portmgr to discuss adding the new category and give > approval for me to do so. Yours, Robert Clausecker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a13db47-1ef4-41d0-9c89-97dbfdaf670b>