Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change

[Chris Pressey]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:07:53 -0500
Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> wrote:

> Inside the proposed pkg-data file, the patches can have
> whatever names you want.

Names that you will rarely, if ever, see in a unified diff between two
pkg-data files - I think that's the most common objection so far.

> Not only that, but you're killing performance when doing
> operations on the entire ports tree (an operation such as
> 'cvsup').  The amount of time to find-and-read ten small
> files is going to be much more than to find-and-read one
> larger file (particularly if that entire larger file can
> still fit in a single block on the disk).

So fix cvsup :)

> Let me just say that I have some long-term ideas which are a bit more
> ambitious, but this idea is a doable first-step towards those ideas. 
> I don't really think *I* can do the longer-term ideas, but I can leave
> the ports-tree in a more flexible state for other projects to take
> advantage of.

Ah, well that's a slightly different goal than "Just reduce the inode
count" isn't it?

Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky, but when you stated that goal I
took it on face value... and now you go and change it :)

But actually, I don't see how bundling everything up into a single (or a
couple of) pkg-data file(s) leaves the ports tree in a more flexible
state, either...

-Chris