From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 21 22:09:11 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61916A41F
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:09:11 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104EE43D45
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:09:10 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 467DC3073; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:09:10 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:09:10 -0500
To: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051021220910.GA18988@soaustin.net>
References: <43522953.6050700@ebs.gr> <20051018160725.GB87664@isis.sigpipe.cz>
	<20051018162907.GB14192@soaustin.net>
	<200510211454.41789.ringworm01@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200510211454.41789.ringworm01@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon)
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:09:11 -0000

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:54:41PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> My .02 cents worth - - - Would the ports system handle adding another
> level to its directory structure?

This is the biggest FAQ about the ports collection and the answer is
always going to be the same: NO.  We have nearly ten thousand lines of
automated tools which have the two-level assumption hardwired into them.
Fixing this would require many, many, hundreds of hours to do the necessary
rewriting and regression testing.

Reading back through the mailing lists would have shown you this.

mcl