Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:51:43 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <p06020416bca1d822f140@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org> References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:16 AM -0400 4/13/04, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>There are distinct advantages to separating content in
>different files: .... This does not mean that I believe
>the proposal to be a bad idea: I think it is a good idea
>as a separate "source package" tree generated from the
>"ports" tree.
I would also say that I don't understand this comment. If
"the real" ports tree is not going to use the pkg-data ideas,
then why bother generating a second copy of the ports tree?
That just gives us more work to do, with zero benefits
("zero benefits" because everyone will still be using
"the real" ports tree).
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020416bca1d822f140>