Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports

[Sergey Matveychuk]

Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 11:16 AM -0400 4/13/04, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> 
>>
>> ... will cost us ease of use in creating and updating ports,
>> certainly, because the developer cannot simply type
>> `diff file{.orig,file} > patchfile' and be finished with it.
> 
> 
> There would be an extra step (or two) here, yes.

It may be quite appreciably for me as a ports developer. When I create 
or update a port I need to diff, test and to diff again and agian.
And we'll get more complex port creation/updating process.
So we'll make developers' life harder.

>> and I also would not be able to just
>> `grep ^whatever ports/foo/*/pkg-plist' in the common,
>> single-plist case.  Of course, the tool wouldn't make it
>> that much harder to do something similar, but it would
>> be twice the typing.
> 
> 
> We could maybe hide that typing behind a make target, similar
> to `make search index=xxx' and `make search key=yyy'

Of course we could.
But we can't to change all mighty-unix-tools with any target anyway.
And if we'll make a search target quite complex we'll force users to 
study more documentation to understand how it works instead of make 
their unix knowledge works.
So we'll make users' life harder.

Apart I think it'll make ports install porocess slower because of 
parsing and extracting.

Do you think saving inodes outweigh all unconveniences we'll get?

> Well, I am guessing this might be taken as a "NO" vote...  :-)

Sorry, my vote is "no" too.

-- 
Sem.