Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 01:49:13 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: peter@jhome.dialix.com Cc: mark@grondar.za, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-games@freefall.freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/games/x11/xneko xneko.c Message-ID: <199509260849.BAA05448@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950923200203.320G-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> (message from Peter Wemm on Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:09:41 %2B0800 (WST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* It'd be really nice if there was an easy, sanctioned way of including an * entire (SMALL!!) source tree somehow with the port, perhaps under * files/source/*? We could do away with patches, as we could just cvs commit * directly into the source. There has been an attempt to make this possible, as can be seen in the comment about NO_EXTRACT in the /usr/ports/GUIDELINES file. (Yeah I know, we should get rid of that file.) Unfortunately, it doesn't work real well. But it's not difficult anyway, you can just put them under "files" and make a do-extract rule that's a bunch of cp's. Not the most efficient way but very easy. * IMHO, packaging it up into "LOCAL_PORTS" on freefall is pretty gross. On * the other hand, it'd be a shame to bloat the size of the ports collection. I agree on both, and if it's real small (say, less than 10KB or so), I don't see any problem just putting the source in there. I'll strongly oppose bringing in a complete source tree unless it's very small though. The beauty of the ports collection is that we can tell the user to go "get ports.tar.gz", without having them getting annoyed by the amount of disk space required. Granted the ports collection has grown a lot recently, but the diskspace/# of ports ratio has remained constant. :) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509260849.BAA05448>