Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:04:17 -0800 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: peter@jhome.DIALix.COM Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Repository copy request: (part of) ports/net -> ports/www Message-ID: <199511270504.VAA01659@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951127095915.13407Y-100000@jhome.DIALix.COM> (message from Peter Wemm on Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:24:23 %2B0800 (WST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* I decided to get lazy and write a script for the "special case" of the * non-tagged ports heirachy. Boy, am I glad Satoshi slapped me back to my * senses when I suggested he branch the 2.1 tree rather than freeze.. Yeah, it's the very nature of the ports tree that things move around a lot...we often discover what we did was not a good idea, new categories are born from overflowing parents, etc.... * BTW, I dont know how much of an issue it is to have a permanently * buildable ports tree, but I can move rather than copy the files all in * the same step. This would leave the SUBDIR tree broken.... Well, that's not much of a problem, it's not as important to have a buildable ports tree as the src tree (and that thing is often broken too :p). I thought the reason was more in the line of two people having to make a mistake to screw up the tree (which I didn't really understand anyway). Assuming it won't break anything for people who have things checked out (and I don't think it will), I think we can do it that way next time. The Gunslinger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511270504.VAA01659>