Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:53:05 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@webgiro.com> Cc: Taavi Talvik <taavi@uninet.ee>, Rasmus Kaj <kaj@raditex.se>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? Message-ID: <19990531155305.A55875@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905311258440.34406-100000@freja.webgiro.com>; from Andrzej Bialecki on Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:02:50PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990531130709.29931A-100000@ns.uninet.ee> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905311258440.34406-100000@freja.webgiro.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:02:50PM +0200, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Folks, how about _admitting_ finally that our ports collection is a > database? We wouldn't need anything else than standard system tools to > maintain a ports.db file containing all that we want as DB records. Rule #1: Any change to the ports collection must not make it harder for the ports committers to keep the ports collection up to date. Rule #2: Any change to the ports collection must not make it harder for people to help out with the ports collection. Rule #3,4, and 5: Read rules #1 and 2 again. Rule #6: It is nice (but not essensial) if the ports become faster and/or smaller than today. Rule #7,8,9, and 10: Read rules #1 and 2 again, and understand their impact. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990531155305.A55875>