Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:24:51 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909182451.M2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org>; from nbm@mithrandr.moria.org on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 04:16:34PM %2B0200 References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 04:16:34PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
# Firstly, I'm only responding to things that come directly to mind
# immediately, and if I don't respond to something, you can be sure you've
# got me thinking deeply. I'm pondering setting up a Wiki-like system to
# describe what we all want, and how we each thinks it can be achieved,
# and what background materials we make these assumptions from - OpenBSD
# ports, NetBSD pkgsrc, Debian's dpkg/apt system, &c.
I'd like to learn more about 'Wiki'. Got any good URLs? I do
think what you seem to be proposing it an excellent idea. :)
# I don't think the package format is in the least significant to the
# problem, except possibly the use of zip-like archives to only grab
# headers, and to perform some sort of package signing. These are both
# dealt with in the package format described and implemented in libh
# currently.
We might want to rethink the package format at some point. I
don't think it is really important to the new package upgrade
mechanism either. However, laying it on the table and having
everyone nod their head that we won't be considering it as part
of our current focus *is* important.
# One unexplored bit of functionality I had in my portconf dashboard a
# year and a half ago required "multiple packages from one port", in that
# it was an auto-explore on all the available options (that affected the
# build) and generating a package with each set of compatible options:
#
# {
# { !foo, !bar, !baz },
# { !foo, !bar, baz },
# { !foo, bar, !baz },
# { !foo, bar, baz },
# { foo, !bar, !baz },
# ...
# }
#
# I think this may be overkill, but it's probably something that can
# easily be implemented in an automatic way, and definitely something that
# can be implemented in a manual way (cf. OpenBSD flavours, portconf
# 'classes') even in the one-port-one-package way.
Indeed it might be overkill. Let's look at it from a tradeoff
perspective. What are the pros/cons of the current 'one port,
one package' system wrt to the other proposals?
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?20000909182451.M2089>