From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 11 19:16:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E708D16A4CE for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663C743D3F for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:16:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0C3GnKx016425; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:16:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040109225629.GB91968@kosmos.my.net> References: <20040109191335.GA91968@kosmos.my.net> <20040109225629.GB91968@kosmos.my.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:16:48 -0500 To: Allan Bowhill , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) Subject: Re: Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:16:54 -0000 At 2:56 PM -0800 1/9/04, Allan Bowhill wrote: > >I can vaguely recall the last really big global change to >ports, when Satoshi (then Ports Manager) consolidated some >files and directories to reduce inode usage. > >One thing I remember was CVSup having problems cleaning up >old files and directories. Perhaps I didn't have the delete >option set, or the sup datafiles got mangled, I can't recall. >I can remember solving it by deleting ports entirely, >then re-CVSupping. I have also been bitten by this at times in the past, perhaps due to some error on my part. In my case the problem was caused by patch-files which did not get deleted, and thus they got applied even though they were no longer relevant. My thought is that if all the information for a port is in a single file, then you only have to care if that one file is up-to-date. >If you can afford to, I think it might be worthwhile to >publish a short document describing the anticipated design, >benefits, and impact of your idea. Then nobody can complain >changes were dropped on them by surprise. Well, I can not make the actual change by myself, so I have to hope that I can convince some long-time ports-developers that my vision has something worthwhile to it... :-) Thus, I expect that I *must* find the time to organize my thoughts better, and let experienced ports-developers offer feedback on that. I hope to have something more to say in the next week or two. Note that I am expecting this project will take at least a month or two before we would be far enough along to commit any changes, so it's not like everyone has to make up their minds in the next few days. And obviously no changes would be committed unless I can come up with something that is attractive to a significant number of ports developers... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu