Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:20:34 -0800 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: multi-level categories Message-ID: <20000214202034.A85452@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <vqcitzshzr9.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:58:18AM -0800 References: <vqc4scoddtw.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <XFMail.000108122747.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> <20000108131719.A22210@futuresouth.com> <vqc66wrnxqb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000118172055.D457@argon.blackdawn.com> <vqcitzshzr9.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:58:18AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> And here's my proposal, slightly revised.
I like this proposal, although I would make the following suggetion:
Make COMMENT the first line of DESCR. It is anyhow in about 40% of the
ports, and it means that there is only one file like this to maintain.
It's pretty easy to 'head -n 1 DESCR'. This would save 3069 files.
I like the pkg-DESCR naming scheme.
> The only remaining big issue is whether to move all patches to the
> main level or not. I'd hate to have to look at lang/pm3-base if that
> happens, but it will reduce the directory count by almost another
> 2,000....
There's at least one very good reason not to do this. security/pgp.
Sometimes you need two patch sets. And although I don't think we have
any patches.i386 and patches.alpha yet, they'll come...
I think that having support for more than one patches dir might be nice
(especially for ports using MASTERDIR).
I would like to see the recommendation about one file per patch lifted.
In my experience it makes ports more difficult to maintain, although
that might just be the way that I work, judging from others comments.
Attached are some simple little scripts I use...
I don't think arguements about doing one 'thing' per patch are valid,
since the requirement that you have one patch per file often precludes
this. Also, arguements about removing a file when the patch is not
needed are bogus, since it's just as easy to delete lines from a file,
and it saves on CVS space.
Having one patch per file makes it more difficult to determine if a file
is already being patched, and also makes comparing patches on two ports
(like gimp1 and gimp1-i18n) more difficult. Also, when you need to
patch a file it is difficult to check in the Attic and work out if the
file was patched in the past, and if you should reuse say patch-aa or
get a new name like patch-bq...
I don't think we should force a one patch scheme though.
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000214202034.A85452>