Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:08:59 -0500
From:      Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>
To:        Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper)
Message-ID:  <20000909190859.O2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net>
In-Reply-To: <20000909183209.E632@radon.gryphonsoft.com>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:32:09PM -0500
References:  <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org> <20000909182451.M2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909183209.E632@radon.gryphonsoft.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 06:32:09PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:

# > What are the pros/cons of the current 'one port,
# > one package' system wrt to the other proposals?
# 
# Pros:
#         1) Fewer inodes.
#         2) Centralized option selection (no more "hmm, do I get option
#            foo and option bar from port-foo+bar or port-foobar?").

This is a pro.

#                                                                     And
#            things are in the directories they really should be in.  This
#            also leads to centralized development (i.e. everything is
#            edited in ONE directory).

This on the other hand is debatable.  IMHO a single master port
and a bunch of satellite ports is easier to maintain.  Perhaps
the real problem is not with having multiple ports, but rather
with a consistent naming convention and the fact that the current
scheme spreads files all over the place which sort of goes back
to the converse of number one above.  The first is easy to spell
out but not really that easy to enforce.  The latter is what
needs to be addressed.  We have two proposals thus far.  Let's
converge on one that doesn't have the cons listed below.

# 
# Cons:

	1) More complex bsd.port.mk.
	2) Doesn't work well with the current package build scripts.
	3) Possible more complex port Makefiles.
	4) Introduces extra steps into the build process.

Nevertheless we have really two conversations going on here.  None
of this has to do with a new ports upgrade system.

-steve


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?20000909190859.O2089>