Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:00:44 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <20000910210044.M47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <20000910175322.G70549@bonsai.hiwaay.net>; from sprice@hiwaay.net on Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:53:22PM -0500 References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <200009082243.e88Mh9V05579@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000910175639.F47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000910175322.G70549@bonsai.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:53:22PM -0500, Steve Price wrote:
> # ports/mail/postfix+sasl
> # ports/mail/postfix+mysql
> # ports/mail/postfix+ldap
> # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+ldap
> # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+sasl
> # ports/mail/postfix+ldap+sasl
> # ports/mail/postfix+mysql+ldap+sasl
>
> If done properly these would all just be a directory and a
> Makefile with all the work being done in the master port. The
> biggest problem with the current scheme is inode consumption.
> Aside from expecting a single port to build multiple packages,
> are there other ways to reduce the inode consumption and stick
> with the current OPOP paradigm?
If people want that many ports for one program, then I can go do that.
I think for some programs the number of combinations would produce
a ridiculous number of ports, and I think handling it with the tools
would be a much more straightforward solution.
--
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc.
billf@chimesnet.com / billf@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?20000910210044.M47559>