Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:56:39 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <407C37E7.3080906@ciam.ru> In-Reply-To: <p06020415bca1cfe1020b@[128.113.24.47]> References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org> <p06020415bca1cfe1020b@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 11:16 AM -0400 4/13/04, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>
>>
>> ... will cost us ease of use in creating and updating ports,
>> certainly, because the developer cannot simply type
>> `diff file{.orig,file} > patchfile' and be finished with it.
>
>
> There would be an extra step (or two) here, yes.
It may be quite appreciably for me as a ports developer. When I create
or update a port I need to diff, test and to diff again and agian.
And we'll get more complex port creation/updating process.
So we'll make developers' life harder.
>> and I also would not be able to just
>> `grep ^whatever ports/foo/*/pkg-plist' in the common,
>> single-plist case. Of course, the tool wouldn't make it
>> that much harder to do something similar, but it would
>> be twice the typing.
>
>
> We could maybe hide that typing behind a make target, similar
> to `make search index=xxx' and `make search key=yyy'
Of course we could.
But we can't to change all mighty-unix-tools with any target anyway.
And if we'll make a search target quite complex we'll force users to
study more documentation to understand how it works instead of make
their unix knowledge works.
So we'll make users' life harder.
Apart I think it'll make ports install porocess slower because of
parsing and extracting.
Do you think saving inodes outweigh all unconveniences we'll get?
> Well, I am guessing this might be taken as a "NO" vote... :-)
Sorry, my vote is "no" too.
--
Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?407C37E7.3080906>