Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:01:41 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F7BA25.6060400@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <42F71D75.4060008@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <42F51979.2020509@FreeBSD.org> <42F54DD4.7080901@freebsd.org> <42F71D75.4060008@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nik Clayton wrote:
> It may be too late in the day, but I'd far prefer this to be pulled in
> with a more descriptive name:
>
> portssync
> portsupdate
> portsfresh or portsfreshen
>
> perhaps?
I think it's too late to change the name; but as the various port.*
tools migrate into the base system (as I hope they well), I get the
feeling that someday it might be a good idea to have a port(8) utility
which takes a command ("install", "upgrade", "update-tree", etc) and
runs the right utility. This would reduce naming confusion, as well
as helping new users to find all the tools they need.
Of course, this depends upon more of these utilities making their way
into the base system.
Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F7BA25.6060400>