On Mon, 31 May 1999, Taavi Talvik wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 1999, Rasmus Kaj wrote: > > > RW> Alternatively, is it possible to have the port tree be essentially > > RW> empty (perhaps just the makefile and category directories) and then > > RW> just have it fetch the makefiles and make the directories on demand, > > for > > RW> the individal ports? > > Rationale for moving stuff elsewhere > > > > In my (recently updated) copy of /usr/ports there is 4819 files in > > */*/patches and 775 files other than md5 in */*/files. Scripts is > > another 270 directories containing 522 files. > > > > Moving this files to the ftp sites would not only mean >6000 less > > files to cvsup, but also >4300 less directories (assuming files/md5 > > could be moved to pkg/ or the port directory). > > > > Comments, anyone? > > Moving these files to ftp requires good automatic means to keep > ftp servers updated. However as of today there are no such means > available. > > CVSup is definitely easiest way to keep well defined collection > of files up to date.
Folks, how about _admitting_ finally that our ports collection is a database? We wouldn't need anything else than standard system tools to maintain a ports.db file containing all that we want as DB records. Andrzej Bialecki // <ab...@webgiro.com> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
