Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:44:03 -0500 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@ALCATEL.COM.AU>, Kai Voigt <k@123.org>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Message-ID: <20000210094403.A410@argon.blackdawn.com> In-Reply-To: <20000210084409.B341@argon.blackdawn.com>; from andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM on Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:44:09AM -0500 References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <00Feb10.221921est.115205@border.alcanet.com.au> <20000210084409.B341@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:44:09AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:19:18PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > >Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact? > > > > This comes up regularly. The last I recall was a thread "a two-level > > port system?" in -hackers last May/June. > > Actually, -ports discussed this quite recently, and it was suggested that > we combine some of the directories to reduce the number of inodes in half. > > This discussion belongs on -ports anyway.. so I'm bcc'ing -current. Oops. I'll leave all the context in so the -ports people can see it. :-) > > My favourite solution (because it's mine) would be to replace the > > existing each port skeleton directory with a single ar(5) file, which > > is unpacked into the directory structure when you make the port. (I > > think ar(5) would be a good choice because (a) it is text, and so can > > be easily managed by CVS; (b) it includes a tool - ar(1) - for easily > > managing the files). > > So, what you'd do is archive all of these directories into ar files, and > have the Makefile unpack the archive whenever a port is needed? It would > preserve the current Makefile, pkg/, scripts/, files/, etc. hierarchy? > > (How the hell would you pull that off? I've only known ar(1) to be used for > creating library archives later ranlib'd..) > > Seems like this idea would make an initial install much faster and the > inode/directory creation would be spread over time. Am I right? > > How would this affect the CVS repository? Would we still have to deal with > the current hierarchy in the ports tree as it is? Or would we deal with it > in ar(5) form? > > Which format would CVSUP update - ar(5) or current hierarchy? If it updates > ar(5) form, how will bsd.port.mk know to update the directory tree for a > particular port if the particular port is already unarchived? > > > What's need to change the existing structure is: > > 1) A completely implemented replacement, including the tools necessary > > to manage the new structure. > > 2) Agreement from Asami-san (and maybe others) to implement the changed > > structure. > > I'm sure if Satoshi heard the answers to the above questions (among others > asked), we'd be well on our way to having a new ports hierarchy for > 5.0-CURRENT. :-) > > But it probably won't happen before 4.0-RELEASE since that's just too close > to implement something big like this.. > > -- > Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> > GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- > ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ > G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > -- Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000210094403.A410>