On 4/17/02 at 8:08 AM, Charles Steinkuehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree whole-heartedly that a bsd /usr/ports (or gentoo > ebuild) type source tree is most appropriate. I don't > think source should go into any of the CVS directories > mentioned to date. > > That doesn't change the fact, however, that I think Mike's > trying to migrate binary LRP files into CVS to cut space > requirements on the SF site. I think the directory > arrangement makes sense for binary packages, but is not a > good idea for the actual source code. The way you describe it, it almost sounds like one is trying to find a way to use a CVS server as a pseudo-FTP server for public file access. I always thought CVS was for Source Code and for Development Sources, etc. > It's still going to be hard to find packages, but > hopefully, an index page or search engine of some sort can > make finding a particular binary package easier. > Regardless, browsing through a couple of directories in > CVS already seems simpler than browsing to the ??? current > directories with LRP files spread throughout the /devel > tree... Ah, but that fix is easy: use links. Separate packages into directories based on the "Group:" tag, then create links to each file in the appropriate glibc* directory based on the "Glibc:" tag. Another quick alternative: cd /home/groups/l/leaf/ftphome for i in $(find ../devel -name "*.lrp") ; do \ ln -sf $i $(basename $i) ; \ done -- David Douthitt UNIX Systems Administrator HP-UX, Unixware, Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
