On 9/1/14, 6:39 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
And for the portsnap users?
In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users.
Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree.
Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by
using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command.
pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages
having a copy of the ports tree is not required.
But it is if you don't want the options that a pkg is built with.
We need to do a lot of pkg munging for that reason, generating
our own versions (which is ok, that's not a complaint, just a fact of
life).
I've warmed to pkg after using it a bit, and many of its initial
shortcomings have been fixed.
But one thing I'd like to request (a very minor thing)..
Could the packing list have some newlines inserted into it to make it
more humanly readable? Our old tools for auditing and controlling (old
style) packages would print out that information.
The new tools we need to write will need to do similar.
We did an experiment at work here and wrote a small script that parsed
it and then rewrote it back to the package with newlines added and
pkg handled it just fine, so it should be a very minor thing to add
some newlines when generating it in the first place.
I don't think anything else needs to be changed.
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
