Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:23:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@glue.umd.edu>, Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Ports layout reorganization (Re: ports tree idea: Combine DESCR and COMMENT) Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0009291226160.11091-100000@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <vqcsnqjin86.fsf_-_@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi Asami wrote: > One reason why I'm not very thrilled about combining COMMENT and DESCR > is that it will require a lot of manual work to merge them -- you > can't just "cat COMMENT DESCR > DESCR2; mv DESCR2 DESCR; cvs remove -f > COMMENT; cvs commit". People actually need to read the DESCR files > and merge the COMMENT lines in as appropriate. > > So I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. On the other hand, moving > COMMENT into Makefiles would be much easier. As long as we look out > for special characters, it can be done automatically. However, as I > said above, the extra directories are an order of magnitude more > significant than extra files. We can revisit this issue later. I like the idea of having the comments in the makefiles. The DESCR files as they are already contain a detailed description, and COMMENT a brief description. A port's Makefile, though, often doesn't have that information. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Handbook (http://www.freebsd.org/porters-handbook/x54.html#AEN67) but portlint encourages us to have 24 or fewer lines of text in DESCR files. If the first line had to be the brief description, I'd want to leave a blank line beneath it, leaving only 22 lines. > As for reducing the number of directories, this is what I came up > with. Comments welcome. > Makefile > checksum (<- files/md5) Often there is more than one checksum in this file. How about "checksums," "cksums" or just "sums" instead? > pkg-comment > pkg-descr > pkg-plist > (and other pkg files) I don't see the value of the pkg- prefix. I do see myself typing two extra characters ("p" then tab) to work with those files from the shell, if the prefix is added. > I do not like moving all the patches into the main directory. It's > not only the number of patches, but the unpredictability of the > directory listing caused by different lengths (more variations now > with filenames included) and number of patches. I want to know where > to look for my stuff when I do a "ls". :) The OpenBSD-style naming I proposed would retain the patch- prefix for patches. That would keep them all in the same place unless you used the -t option to ls. > or heaven forbid: > > === > ## ls > total 21 > 1 CVS/ 1 patch-ac 1 pkg-comment > 1 Makefile 1 patch-ad 1 pkg-descr > 1 checksum 1 patch-af 1 pkg-plist > 1 files/ 1 patch-ag 2 scripts-create-dev-link* > 3 patch-aa 1 patch-ai > 3 patch-ab 1 patch-ba > === I could live with this, even if the patches had longer names that forced a single-column listing. I realize that some porters cannot. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.4.21.0009291226160.11091-100000>