On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> 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.
We HAVE to live in the house. The question is "how do we make the best use of
the hand that was dealt us?"
Fundamentally, I object to being required/expected to maintain a copy of a
large amount of information that does not impact my system.
I don't care about the patches to XXXXX unless I decide to install it.
Similarly, I think that it is a stupid design to require everyone to keep the
ENTIRE history of a file (per cvs). I have CD roms which have the old versions
in case I need to reference them.
Why cannot the 4.0 branch simply "end" with a reference to the 3.x CD for
those who want to dig deeper.
> > Now, here is a really "silly" idea.
> >Why don't we make a `port` collection of the FreeBSD kernel and
> > standard userland utilities?
> This idea makes a lot of sense. All of FreeBSD could be packagable
> as ports/packages. It might even simplify the installer.
And `make` can pull in the dependencies ....
(-: Sorry, you cannot reuse the existing tools. You must write a new one :-)
--
Richard Wackerbarth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
