On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:44:09AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:19:18PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > >Am I the only one being little annoyed by this fact?
> >
> > This comes up regularly. The last I recall was a thread "a two-level
> > port system?" in -hackers last May/June.
>
> Actually, -ports discussed this quite recently, and it was suggested that
> we combine some of the directories to reduce the number of inodes in half.
>
> This discussion belongs on -ports anyway.. so I'm bcc'ing -current.
Oops. I'll leave all the context in so the -ports people can see it. :-)
> > My favourite solution (because it's mine) would be to replace the
> > existing each port skeleton directory with a single ar(5) file, which
> > is unpacked into the directory structure when you make the port. (I
> > think ar(5) would be a good choice because (a) it is text, and so can
> > be easily managed by CVS; (b) it includes a tool - ar(1) - for easily
> > managing the files).
>
> So, what you'd do is archive all of these directories into ar files, and
> have the Makefile unpack the archive whenever a port is needed? It would
> preserve the current Makefile, pkg/, scripts/, files/, etc. hierarchy?
>
> (How the hell would you pull that off? I've only known ar(1) to be used for
> creating library archives later ranlib'd..)
>
> Seems like this idea would make an initial install much faster and the
> inode/directory creation would be spread over time. Am I right?
>
> How would this affect the CVS repository? Would we still have to deal with
> the current hierarchy in the ports tree as it is? Or would we deal with it
> in ar(5) form?
>
> Which format would CVSUP update - ar(5) or current hierarchy? If it updates
> ar(5) form, how will bsd.port.mk know to update the directory tree for a
> particular port if the particular port is already unarchived?
>
> > What's need to change the existing structure is:
> > 1) A completely implemented replacement, including the tools necessary
> > to manage the new structure.
> > 2) Agreement from Asami-san (and maybe others) to implement the changed
> > structure.
>
> I'm sure if Satoshi heard the answers to the above questions (among others
> asked), we'd be well on our way to having a new ports hierarchy for
> 5.0-CURRENT. :-)
>
> But it probably won't happen before 4.0-RELEASE since that's just too close
> to implement something big like this..
>
> --
> Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w---
> ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+
> G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y?
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w---
?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+
G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
