From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jul 2 19:15:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA20308 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:15:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from localhost.my.domain (ppp1710.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.249.174]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA20264 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:15:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tim@localhost.my.domain) Received: (from tim@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00206; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 21:31:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tim) Message-ID: <19980702213140.A196@zappo> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 21:31:40 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek To: dannyman Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New ports scheme References: <19980702102203.B1763@enteract.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <19980702102203.B1763@enteract.com>; from dannyman on Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 10:22:03AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 10:22:03AM -0500, dannyman wrote: > Ermm ... if we're going to muck with the ports directory structure anyway, > maybe we might consider having more than one directory level? like > net/irc/bitchx, net/ftp/ncftp3, etc ... ? Except that there's a a very strong contingent believing that modern technology has outdated the deep hierarchy in favour of the more flattened model our current system has. That said, if you propose some new hierarchy, I'll support you. :) You do realize that at the current ports system size, that means categorizing in excess of 1500 ports. -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message