Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 04:44:04 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: DPS Initial Ideas Message-ID: <20070513084404.GA35648@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <4646C249.6070103@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20070512004209.GA12218@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <17989.8202.624522.136573@bhuda.mired.org> <20070512090935.GA13929@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20070512193302.GA24673@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070512214422.GA88480@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20070512222435.GA28981@xor.obsecurity.org> <4646C249.6070103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 08:46:17AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > The problem is that maintaining the INDEX is expensive and/or tricky. > > p5-FreeBSD-Portindex comes close but seems to have some wrinkles. > > If you'ld just tell me what you perceive the wrinkles to be, then I'd > have a fighting chance at addressing them, which I would be glad to do... I only looked today so I didn't have time to fully investigate things, which is why you didn't hear from me directly yet :) Basically there are some differences (extra whitespace, etc) that are cosmetic but which make validation against the full INDEX build more difficult, but the major one seems to be that ports that change their name dynamically (depending on e.g. installed ports detected, or changes in build options) do not seem to have this reflected in the incremental index. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070513084404.GA35648>