Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:37:21 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Which Ports are what Message-ID: <20010924153721.A5639@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <3kn13kwd9c.13k@localhost.localdomain> References: <15278.60789.354430.399534@guru.mired.org> <3kn13kwd9c.13k@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Sep 24), Gary W. Swearingen said: > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> writes: > > The perl section of the ports is programs/modules *written in* > > perl. > > That strikes me as an odd way to categorize software. > > I suppose some people don't want Perl on their system and having the > Perl programs integrated with the mainstream (ie, compiled?) programs > causes some kind of problem for them. Isn't there some way to solve > those problems while allowing the Perl programs to be integrated so > people can see them in the regular categories? You do see them in regular categories. A port can be in many categories at once. The current winner is "devel/SWIG-devel", which is in devel, perl5, python, ruby, and tcl82. > Or maybe I shouldn't care about port directory structure at all and I > should only care about the categorization of the ports html files > (which then shouldn't be in the ports directories)? Correct. In fact, if you look at the physical layout of the ports tree, you'll notice there is no perl/ directory at all. The Perl category is a virtual one. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010924153721.A5639>