Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:13:27 +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: <407C49E7.4070207@ciam.ru> In-Reply-To: <p0602041bbca1e9f31e48@[128.113.24.47]> References: <200404131516.i3DFGMJA078941@green.homeunix.org> <p06020415bca1cfe1020b@[128.113.24.47]> <407C37E7.3080906@ciam.ru> <p0602041bbca1e9f31e48@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn wrote: >> Of course we could. >> But we can't to change all mighty-unix-tools with any target >> anyway. > > > I am sorry, but I do not understand this sentence. I am not > sure what you mean by it. I meant we'll can't make the search target so might as grep-awk-find etc. tools is. E.g. I want to know how many files port has: grep -v @dirrm pkg-plist | wc -l (OK. It's may be not very accurate.) But But idea is we don't know what info user want to get. With pkg-data user need to extract data first. Even if extracting tools will easy to use he need to know how these tools work (command lines, options etc.). > of time and effort to make it happen. I might be wrong about > how useful this change is, but I (personally) at least *THINK* > that it is worth doing. OK, I can't say for most people. (Really I feel no need in it with my two 160Gb disks at my home computer :) I'll ask in russian mail list. -- Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?407C49E7.4070207>