Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:13:31 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <20051015061331.GA31258@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <8347452E-908C-4BE5-AC8F-E6378C1BF17C@softweyr.com> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <E14F38B2-B1AF-415F-AE6B-A4BE6330A83D@opensail.org> <20051015053003.GB28137@soaustin.net> <8347452E-908C-4BE5-AC8F-E6378C1BF17C@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:59:09PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Makes you wonder how much the rest of the ports system would be > cleaned up with a 'perl' category and all those p5-something- > something ports got tossed into that basket, doesn't it? I do _not_ recommend we attempt to do the 1688 (one thousand six hundred eighty-eight) repocopies, even if anyone was insane enough to volunteer to try to do so. It would take months to sort through the damage to the depedency tree, during which time the ports tree would effectively be broken. No matter how much we tested it first, we would never get them all. And, of course, we'd have to have the tree frozen to run the regression test, or the test would become instantly obsolete the second we ran it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051015061331.GA31258>