Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Thu Jan 8 18:50:30 PST 2004
At 3:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote:
>At 2:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote:
> > >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).
>Look a the full quote: "changes might be spread all over the new
>big file", you can't come around this and it's a pain to read
>this (even - or especially - in a unified diff).
Eh, I often find it harder to understand a change if it has to be
spread around a lot of small files, but I can see your point.
And I do expect that my idea will have to support ways to break
some of the information out of the single-new-file, for the case
where the single-new-file gets too large and unwieldy. I am
thinking that it could have an '#include' ability, for instance.
I'm not completely set on how this should work, but I suspect it
will be useful to have some sort of escape hatch.
Still, my goal is that at least 90% of the ports will wind up
as just two or three files.
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at rpi.edu
More information about the freebsd-ports