Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change

Garance A Drosihn drosih at
Thu Jan 8 18:50:30 PST 2004

At 3:33 AM +0100 1/9/04, Max Laier wrote:
>Garance 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
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list