Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports

Brian F. Feldman green at
Tue Apr 13 11:30:30 PDT 2004

Garance A Drosihn <drosih at> wrote:
> >This is a very slippery slope.  I don't think ports should be
> >an XML package definition -- that's just not the BSD way.
> Well, I am guessing this might be taken as a "NO" vote...  :-)

It's not that it's a "NO" vote per se -- I think it should be done all the 
way if it is to be undertaken.  

> >There are distinct advantages to separating content in
> >different files: ....  This does not mean that I believe
> >the proposal to be a bad idea: I think it is a good idea
> >as a separate "source package" tree generated from the
> >"ports" tree.
> I would also say that I don't understand this comment. If
> "the real" ports tree is not going to use the pkg-data ideas,
> then why bother generating a second copy of the ports tree?
> That just gives us more work to do, with zero benefits
> ("zero benefits" because everyone will still be using
> "the real" ports tree).

Who is going to benefit from the pkg-data tree, though?  It has to be 
EVERYONE for it to be worth it, in my opinion, and I don't think everyone 
will benefit unless it is significantly more designed than the current 
proposal.  Is the real benefit supposed to be that the tree takes less disk 
space, or is it that things are more easily "packaged" (read: better?)  I 
don't think the former is a problem that needs to be solved, so I want to 
know what the latter is going to be.

Brian Fundakowski Feldman                           \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
  <> green at                               \  The Power to Serve! \
 Opinions expressed are my own.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list