ports structure and improvement suggestions

[Danny Pansters]

On Tuesday 09 May 2006 00:28, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:38:19 -0500, Sideris Michael <msid at daemons.gr>
>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:24:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Also, I'd like to see all the known bugs in OPTIONS fixed, before we
> >> impose it on all the people.
> >
> > Of course they are not going to convert automagically, but if people are
> > never willing to
> > convert them, then they will never convert.
>
> Pav is right, it's one of reason I refused to convert any of my ports to
> use OPTIONS. Also, the OPTIONS has some limited. I don't like to be
> downgrade and limited by default. Once, all of known bugs are fixed and
> get a lot better then I shall accept the convert. The truth is that I
> always and still think that OPTIONS doesn't solve anything.
>


> As for improvement suggest, I always want our ports tree to merge two
> prefixes (LOCALBASE/X11BASE) into a prefix. It's a big task.

A simple hard link to start with? Would that leave many problems (name 
clashes?) 

I also wanted to see this LOCALBASE/X11BASE go since forever. It complicates 
quite a many ports needlessly (includes in both local and X11R6 trees etc).

Cheers,

Dan

>
> A bit OT: I have wrote cports.sh[1] that will running portlint on all
> ports that maintain by same person. I am hoping to clean up all of gnome@
> ports when I am finishing w/ my final lab/exam on this week
> (Tuesday/Thursday).
>
> [1] http://www.marcuscom.com:8080/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/portstools/cports.sh
>
> Cheers,
> Mezz
>
> > Sideris Michael.