big PLIST_FILES patch

[Trevor Johnson]

Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:49:20AM +0300, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >>I've noticed that many ports have just one line in their packing list.
> > >>I've made a patch to use the PLIST_FILES variable in place of most these
> > >>simple packing lists, in order to reduce the numbers of inodes and blocks
> > >>that users need to unpack the ports collection.  This patch would affect
> > >>1,217 ports.  There are 50-odd pkg-plist files that just have a comment in
> > >>them; this patch doesn't address those (I have a hunch that they could
> > >>just be removed without causing problems).
> > [skipped]
> > >When do you think you'll be able to fix all those plist problems in
> > >your ports, and other port build failures?  I'd prefer you did this
> > >before working on other port changes, since they've been broken for
> > >going on 3 months or more now.
> >
> > But Kris, 1217 ports is a quite big work. Agreed?
>
> Yes, but it's just a style change (it doesn't fix any errors),

By consuming fewer inodes and fewer blocks, I expect to improve
performance.  At a conference in November, a prospective user asked me why
ports.tgz takes so long to untar.

> so it's lower priority than fixing port bugs.

I sent a patch on November 29th--10 days after adding the ports--to the
ports list and portmgr, followed by a reminder on December 1st, but saw no
response.
-- 
Trevor Johnson