Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change

Garance A Drosihn drosih at
Thu Jan 8 18:07:22 PST 2004

At 2:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote:
>On Friday 09 January 2004 01:49, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>  Especially as disks get ever-larger, I think we're
>>  better off with fewer-but-larger files, instead of a larger
>>  number of tiny files.
>As disks get lager there is fewer concern about lost space
>(in my personal perception). If one is concered, however,
>she/he could keep /usr/ports on a  seperate (smaler) partition
>and be okay. Not a compelling arument to change a working system.

As disks get larger, the minimum size of a file will grow.

More to the point, however, is that the sheer number of inodes
is a headache.  If that is not true, then why did the ports
collection just go thru a whole lot of work to remove one file
(pkg-comment) from all the ports?

>  > I would also write a single simple program, which knows how
>  > to find the correct info for any given purpose.
>You will never catch all the (crude) hacks spread all around
>the ports  Makefiles and pkg-* with a "simple program".

I suspect I was too brief in my initial message.  I had started
with a much-longer message, but figured everyone would give up
on it before trying to read it all...

The simple-program is *only* for pulling information out of the
suggested new file.  That's all it will do.  You might run it
with a parameter of "patches", and it will create the directory
and then fill that directory with files patch.001 through
patch.042.  Then the standard port-processing would apply
*those* patch files, instead of each port (as it comes from
cvsup) containing a directory of patch files.

I should stress that I do not expect *all* ports to put *all*
their patches into this single new file.  But for ports which
only have a few lines to change, they could put the patch(es)
in this new file instead of separate files.

>1) Changes are much harder to do:
>    With the currently used scheme it's fairly easy to add a
>    patch when needed.

I do not expect this to get any harder.  (of course, I might
be wrong on that)

>2) Changes are much harder to track:

On the contrary, changes should be *easier* to track.  All the
information for any given port will be in two files.  This will
not be true for all ports (particularly for ports which have a
lot of patch files).

>3) It will get harder to create ports:

I really do not expect this to happen -- particularly since
the simple-program will know how to find the appropriate
information for EITHER old-style or new-style ports.  Thus,
it CANNOT be harder to do than it is now, because someone
can just do exactly what they do now and the makefiles will
handle it all.

Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list