Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:06:22 -0400 From: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@glue.umd.edu> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree idea: Combine DESCR and COMMENT Message-ID: <39CD295E.453FF278@glue.umd.edu> References: <39CD200B.A10214EA@glue.umd.edu> <20000923233215.A45139@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > > On Sat 2000-09-23 (17:26), Brandon Fosdick wrote: > > I haven't read all of the discussion regarding the ports tree remake, so this > > could be totally useless. My intent is for this to be a short term, easy to > > implement, band-aid(TM). > > > > Since people complain about the number of inodes that the ports tree > > uses I was thinking that maybe the pkg/DESCR and pkg/COMMENT files > > could be combined. Since the COMMENT file is usually only one line it > > seems that that one line could easily be made the very first line of > > DESCR. > > > > Now obviously this only saves one inode per port, but when you have over 3000 > > ports it starts to add up. Is this something that could be done while we're > > waiting for the new reincarnation of the ports tree? > > It's not really the files that kill us, but the directories. So are you saying that removing some files won't help at all, or that it won't help enough to be worth the effort? Since the pkg dir currently has only 3 files in it (and maybe two of them can be combined) would it help to just do away with the pkg dir altogether? Sure it makes the port directory a little messier, but only by 2 or 3 files. Again, I'm thinking more about short term patches than nice pretty long term solutions. -Brandon 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?39CD295E.453FF278>