Richard Wackerbarth writes:
> There are two problems in the size of the ports system.
> 1) The large number of inodes.

I don't see the ports tree as the problem. The problem is that
FreeBSD does not handle a very large directory hierarchy like
that presented by the ports tree very well.

The right angle of attack IMHO is to better optimize the kernel
and maybe the filesystem.  I don't know enough to know how you
would do this though.  For example, there's the thing about how
we don't cache filesystem data and filesystem meta-data (directory
blocks) the same way (this is the best I can describe it).

> 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.

This idea makes a lot of sense. All of FreeBSD could be packagable
as ports/packages. It might even simplify the installer.


Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to