Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:17:19 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: multi-level categories Message-ID: <20000108131719.A22210@futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000108122747.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> References: <vqc4scoddtw.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <XFMail.000108122747.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 12:27:47PM -0500, a little birdie told me
that Will Andrews remarked
>
> Not only that - but some ports will need to have their names moved to
> lowercase.. things like ORBacus, Mesa3, ORBit, and others..
In at least most cases, I support this anyway :)
I remember taking 20 minutes to track down Mosaic, simply because it was
capitalized for no real reason I could discern..
> Why wouldn't it be a Good Idea? Can't we just patch using a patch-* regex in
> ${.CURDIR}?
Making it machine-readable is trivial. Making reading 'ls' palpable is
harder.
> IMO, combining ${FILESDIR} and ${SCRIPTDIR} wouldn't be too bad an idea. It's
> not like anyone's scripts would break.
I'm trying to think of a good reason why files/, scripts/, and patches/
can't all be combined into files/. That's what they all are, anyway...
> Hmm.. just had a thought. That CVS directory - I normally rm -rf all of them so
> that the patches I send via send-pr won't have them in there. But we could
> drive towards having people use these CVS/ dirs for what they're for - making
> patches. Seems like porting.html could cover this topic..?
????
The CVS/ dir is created by CVS when you checkout the tree. They have
nothing to do with the port itself. In fact, most of us *USE* those CVS/
dirs to create patches for send-pr (read: 'cvs diff').
> Well, I'm not sure that eradicating ${PKGDIR}, ${FILESDIR}, etc. would help
> much with management.. or filesystem performance.
AFA filesystem performance it would make a BIG difference. All ports
have files/, and a large number (most?) have patches/. I'd say that
sticking everything in files/ would cut the number of dirs practically
in half. Yay, a /usr/ports that uses a less-than-obscene number of
inodes!
> BTW, is the current format for files/md5:
>
> MD5 (ORBit-0.5.0.tar.gz) = ff977db3e5273bf6e13dd3124bed0696
>
> efficient? Seems like we could program the makesum target to remove the first
> three tokens altogether. Right now, this is what is used to extract the
That doesn't work when we have multiple files for a port. It also makes
it easy to transition to another hash scheme for checksums in the future
if necessary; just use a different first token. I don't think forking
off a few extra processes during the checksum check is any huge performance
sink. Even musca (my 2.1.5 386/16 with 4 megs of RAM) can handle that
in a fairly trivial amount of time.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com
Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/
"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
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?20000108131719.A22210>