Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 2:38 PM -0400 5/24/04, Christopher Nehren wrote:
>On Mon, May 24, 2004, Garance A Drosihn scribbled these curious markings:
>>
>  > The third proposal is basically:
>>      a) move most "standard" files into a new pkg-data
>>         file, as described in previous proposals, except
>>         for pkg-descr and "patch" files.
>
>Yuck. I don't want to have to navigate a large file just to
>see how to enable something or change something for a port,
>or check its plist, etc.
>
>And, how do you suppose 'make' will work?

This was covered in my earlier RFC's.  My last round of
ideas is written up at:

http://people.freebsd.org/~gad/PkgData/

but I really need to update those pages to include all the things
we've worked on since then.  New ideas, etc.  I really should have
done that before posting this "round 3", but I promised Darren I
would post *something* this weekend, and I didn't have the time
to update those web pages.

>  > Thus, end-users could 'cvsup refuse' the patches for categories
>>  that they do not care about, and it would not break operations
>>  which work on the entire ports collection (such as `make index').
>
>Not that I've tried this, but ... can't you just use a mask like
>ports/graphics/*/files/ or such to refuse patch files?

I have no idea.  Try it.  Let me know.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at rpi.edu