Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Mon May 24 12:25:51 PDT 2004
At 2:38 PM -0400 5/24/04, Christopher Nehren wrote:
>On Mon, May 24, 2004, Garance A Drosihn scribbled these curious markings:
> > The third proposal is basically:
>> a) move most "standard" files into a new pkg-data
>> file, as described in previous proposals, except
>> for pkg-descr and "patch" files.
>Yuck. I don't want to have to navigate a large file just to
>see how to enable something or change something for a port,
>or check its plist, etc.
>And, how do you suppose 'make' will work?
This was covered in my earlier RFC's. My last round of
ideas is written up at:
but I really need to update those pages to include all the things
we've worked on since then. New ideas, etc. I really should have
done that before posting this "round 3", but I promised Darren I
would post *something* this weekend, and I didn't have the time
to update those web pages.
> > Thus, end-users could 'cvsup refuse' the patches for categories
>> that they do not care about, and it would not break operations
>> which work on the entire ports collection (such as `make index').
>Not that I've tried this, but ... can't you just use a mask like
>ports/graphics/*/files/ or such to refuse patch files?
I have no idea. Try it. Let me know.
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