Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:19:53 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510211719.55854.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200510211623.13878.ringworm01@gmail.com> References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <20051021223958.GA19955@soaustin.net> <200510211623.13878.ringworm01@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 21 October 2005 16:23, the author Michael C. Shultz contributed to the dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: >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. In addition to searching and browsing there are problems associated with the physival organization of files on local systems as well as on the freebsd server systems. This issue is not addressed by fiddling with just the search and browsing issue. With framework centric computing one needs the ports system to have a hierarchy that matches local needs as well as server needs. As a temporary measure that could be done by making more categories available without the currenty hassle. e.g. /usr/ports/java and /usr/ports/eclipse while more long terms redesign of of outfate two tier ports system can be implemented My two pennorth david >> >> 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 > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after completing engineroom refit.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510211719.55854.vizion>