Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:24:23 +0200 From: hans@lambermont.dyndns.org (Hans Lambermont) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New category - ports/packages specific tools? Message-ID: <20060516142423.GB1876@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060516092155.a6e323c2.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> References: <20060515222815.GA2535@picobyte.net> <20060516070750.df210cfd.bsd-unix@earthlink.net> <4469B8FE.8020904@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20060516092155.a6e323c2.bsd-unix@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randy Pratt wrote: > Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: >> Randy Pratt wrote: >>> Shaun Amott <shaun@inerd.com> wrote: >>>> There are lots of nifty tools in ports for handling ports and >>>> packages. It would be nice if they were all in one, easy to find >>>> place. ... >> The first step surely is a virtual category. ... > The value of a virtual category is not intuitive on a local system. > For example, hamradio is a virtual category but if you look in > /usr/ports there is nothing that indicates that it exists. This is > what most new users would do if they don't know to cd /usr/ports && > make search key=hamradio. If you don't know that a virtual category > exists, then its pretty hard to find. > > I could be mistaken but I don't believe there is even a mention of > virtual ports categories in the Handbook (Porters Handbook, yes). Man > 7 ports doesn't mention virtual categories either. > > I'm sure there's some good reasons for doing a two-step category > addition and I don't want to start a bikeshed (we've seen enough of > those lately). I'm just not sure how a user finds out about them. You make a good point. It would be nice if the virtual category phase can be skipped for this case. regards, Hans Lambermont
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060516142423.GB1876>