From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 29 21: 3: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from peak.mountin.net (peak.mountin.net [207.227.119.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF1937B66C; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by peak.mountin.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA00828; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:03:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jeff-ml@mountin.net) Received: from dial-76.max1.wa.cyberlynk.net(207.227.118.76) by peak.mountin.net via smap (V1.3) id sma000826; Fri Sep 29 23:02:34 2000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000929220000.00e0d7e0@207.227.119.2> X-Sender: jeff-ml@207.227.119.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:58:30 -0500 To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: RFC: Ports layout reorganization (Re: ports tree idea: Combine DESCR and COMMENT) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <"Jeffrey J. Mountin"'s message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:02:50 -0500"> <4.3.2.20000929140626.00c3fa00@207.227.119.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 05:38 PM 9/29/00 -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: --snip agreement with my quote of Trevor-- One line in the Makefile and one less file to deal with. > * Agreed and since the person doing the proposing has to change > bsd.port.mk's > * readme target to make the README.html files... ;) > >You're talking about me? ;) Hmmm... >As for the COMMENT thing, we don't have to move all at once. Say, if >COMMENTSTR is defined, use that as the comment, otherwise use the >file. That way ports can migrate slowly, and since there is no need >for repo copies on this, people can just change them at their leisure. And then eventually remove the code. At your leisure of course. >We could also have portlint warn and addport reject new ports with the >individual comment file to ensure we won't be accumulating any new >ones. Makes sense. > * Moving them to the root and prefixing them means the are visually tied > * together and that has value. One can quickly see if they are there and I > >Yes, that is exactly the point. Sorry I omitted it in my latest RFC, >it was in the original discussion but I should have mentioned it. No omission, just between the lines if you look close. ;) > * Speaking of patch naming. Some like using the file name rather than > * patch. This might be a problem if the patches are moved to files/ and > * think that something along the line of patch--?? would be better > * (only have one locally that doesn't start with patch). Again, visually > * grouped and should please most. I rather like the idea of know what file > * the patch is for and not have to open every patch to find something. > >I'm not sure how you got the impression that patches were going to >lose the "patch-" prefix. They won't. In fact I was planning to just >repo-copy everything from patches/ to files/ and be done with it. On oblique reference to several discussions on patch naming. Only brought it up to point out the visual grouping possible *should* patches be moved to the main dir.... >Whether the individual patches are called "patch-[a-z][a-z]" or >"patch-" are up to the maintainer. ... like one without the patch- prefix in security/sslproxy and may be others, which don't follow the guidelines. >Yes, it is a personal preference of myself and many others. I should >have noted that I don't think losing some directories is benificial if >it makes the job harder for some of our already overworked committers >bunch. :) Which is why I understand the reasoning for the scripts dir... > * OK, scripts/ could stay. What's another 1000 inodes compared to losing > * 40,000. Or 60,000 if files/ goes away. > >You didn't read all of what I typed (I know, most people don't :). By >my calculation, there are only 1,756 files/ directories we can get rid >of by moving all patches to the main directory. Not all ports have >patches and many will have things in files/ other than patches. The >difference is 8,780, not 20,000. And since I do not have entire tree could not calculate the savings or figure out all the combinations. While a 50% increase in savings looked good for a gross guess, 22% isn't all that bad either. ;) Yes, I did read all. Several times. A bit bruised from the numbers flying, but presume that 204 ports will have script/ and also might be one of the 2354 with files/ leaving somewhere between 1500-1700 with neither after pkg/* moves to the port root, patches/* moves to files/, and files/md5's are moved to root and renamed "distinfo" or some other name that makes sense and allows for completions. ... and completions makes a better argument to me than columns in 'ls' (use an alias for 'ls -l' and the output of 'ls | column -x' better than 'ls' - a reading style preference if you will :) to make changing directories easier. Guess the plan would be to update bsd.port.mk, portlint, repo-copy, and start sucking COMMENT into the Makefile's at it's simplest. Wonder how much time the "reduced directory" tarball will save when unpacking or doing a 'find'. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message