On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Seems reasonable. Last time I checked (1st June 1999), I found
> 79967 - of which 35215 was CVS-related files/directories. There
> were also nearly 62,000 inodes. It'll get worse - PHK has changed
> the FS defaults from 8K/1K to 16K/4K, which will roughly triple
> the space.
> My favourite solution (because it's mine) would be to replace the
> existing each port skeleton directory with a single ar(5) file
There are two problems in the size of the ports system.
1) The large number of inodes.
Your proposal certainly addresses this.
2) The huge size of our ports collection.
Unfortunately, this will only get worse^H^H^H^H^Hbetter.
In addition to the files needed to build a port, there is a description
which is quite useful.
My variation on your theme is to have two files for each of the present ports.
The first would be a Makefile that has the description imbedded in it.
This would provide the hook to build the port and a browsable "library of
available programs"
The second would be your `ar` file of the patches, build instructions, etc.
These would get unpacked only during the actual building of a particular port.
For distribution, I would have the top level descriptions as one set.
The archives could be obtained either individually or as sets corresponding
to each of the present top level directories.
Now, here is a really "silly" idea. Why don't we make a `port` collection of
the FreeBSD kernel and standard userland utilities? That would lead to
the next step of having the "standard distribution" become just a meta package
much like 'kde' pulls in 'kdebase', 'kdeutils', 'kdegraphics', etc.
--
Richard Wackerbarth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
