Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:33:44 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change Message-ID: <200401090333.44516.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <p0602041abc1660a416d0@[128.113.24.47]> References: <p0602041abc1660a416d0@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote: I suspect I was too brief in my initial message. I had started > with a much-longer message, but figured everyone would give up > on it before trying to read it all... > > The simple-program is *only* for pulling information out of the > suggested new file. That's all it will do. You might run it > with a parameter of "patches", and it will create the directory > work/patches > and then fill that directory with files patch.001 through > patch.042. Then the standard port-processing would apply > *those* patch files, instead of each port (as it comes from > cvsup) containing a directory of patch files. Indeed, that makes it much more understandable. > >1) Changes are much harder to do: > > With the currently used scheme it's fairly easy to add a > > patch when needed. > > I do not expect this to get any harder. (of course, I might > be wrong on that) At least you have to do an additional export (from the big file) and (in the end) an import. > >2) Changes are much harder to track: > > On the contrary, changes should be *easier* to track. All the > information for any given port will be in two files. This will > not be true for all ports (particularly for ports which have a > lot of patch files). Look a the full quote: "changes might be spread all over the new big file", you can't come around this and it's a pain to read this (even - or especially - in a unified diff). > >3) It will get harder to create ports: > > I really do not expect this to happen -- particularly since > the simple-program will know how to find the appropriate > information for EITHER old-style or new-style ports. Thus, > it CANNOT be harder to do than it is now, because someone > can just do exactly what they do now and the makefiles will > handle it all. Yes, I got your idea completely wrong. Still, if you want to do this: I'd suggest to avoid to write new tools that need compilation, there are quite a few default unix tools that can do the work for you: tar, shar ... which are in the default install. The additional targets to bsd.port.mk could be done in a very small and clean way. -- Best regards, | max@love2party.net Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401090333.44516.max>