Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 13:17:45 -0600 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Sup's Freefall-centric tree conventions Message-ID: <v0213050cacf0e0476aa6@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> I think that we are basically in agreement. > >Yes :-) > >> My only objection to your >> scheme is that it is FreeBSD-centric. What if I also want to support >> NetBSD? I therefore feel that "FreeBSD" (or "freebsd", I happen to prefer >> the caps, but that is personal preference) needs to appear somewhere in the >> path. The important thing from the user's point of view is that by simply >> changing "sup.freebsd.org" into "sup.uk.freebsd.org" or "sup1.freebsd.org", >> he can get the same results. And further, having gotten the results, I can >> turn around and supserve them to someone else. > >I would certainly agree. I have zero objection to it! ;-) > >> Further, those results should not step on the underlying system. We should >> be prepared to support multiple versions of the OS and multiple OS's in the >> archive scheme without them stepping on each other. >> >> I would be happy with /FreeBSD/2.1/src or /sup/FreeBSD/cvs or ... > >Well I prefer to put things under functional hierarchies. I propose we >consider > >/sup/FreeBSD/current >/sup/FreeBSD/stable >/sup/FreeBSD/cvs We are saying the same thing. I meant that we might want to group things under /FreeBSD rather than /sup/FreeBSD in that, at least in theory, I could get the source via CTM or some other mechanism. I still feel that .../stable should simply be a link to the "real" .../2.1 tree. That way, I don't have to move the trees around when someone suddenly decides that it is time to change the "-stable" branch and I want to keep the 2.1 tree. > >unless someone has a better reason. Matter of fact, I have someone on their >way down to the office now, to discuss these very issues, and he will be >setting up and helping to maintain the archive system here at sol.net. > >> I think we also need to rethink the "ports" situation a bit. >> Although it is generally the case that the latest port of xxxx will work >> with any of the FreeBSD-2.x releases, we will come to a point where the >> port for 2.1 is different from the port for 2.2. How do we reasonably >> assure that the user easily gets the correct version for his system? > >This has always bothered me as well. However it seems like you need a lot >of space to maintain the distfiles :-) 1) It is not necessary that every site maintain all the dist files. 2) Folding of the common trees IS necessary. Since distfiles are an independent naming system, they should not be under the source trees, but rather a peer to them. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v0213050cacf0e0476aa6>