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

[Alexander Leidinger]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:47:34 -0400
Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> wrote:

> At 3:46 PM -0400 5/24/04, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >At 7:38 PM +0200 5/24/04, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> >>
> >>ATM you can checkout one (new/updated) port from cvs into
> >>any non-"ports/" directory and it will work just fine
> >>(depending on the dependencies of the port). I don't see
> >>how this is possible with [the above] approach.
> >
> >..., I was assuming
> >that the end-user would still be working in a copy of the
> >entire ports-collection, so I was just going to download
> >into ports/Packages.  Maybe that isn't the right idea.
> 
> Actually, the solution is probably pretty simple.  Just
> create a distfiles/Patches directory, and download any
> missing "ports-collection patches" into that directory,
> if we can't find them in ports/Patches...

In this case get rid of ports/Patches and have all patches automatically
downloaded, no need to have more than one such directory. But this will
add "trash", since there's no automatic way to remove downloaded patches
which are outdated (I play a little bit with your point of saving space
here). You can remove some at the fetch-patches stage (and you have to,
to not have some outdated ones in a new build), but you would have to
issue a "make fetch-patches" for every port the user ever touched to
clean everything up.  I don't know how important this issue is for our
user base, I just tell you about some issues which cross my mind and you
have to decide on your own about them.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
           I'm available to get hired (preferred in .lu).

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7