> On Oct 23, 2016, at 3:59 AM, Chris Jones <jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > So... you are saying you would take these collections, and instead of > grouping them together scatter them around in the other directories, > like 'science' etc., depending on what sort of functionality they > provide ? I think that would be much worse, sorry.
Would I prefer that they be organized the way all the other ports are already organized? Yes. Our current inconsistent hodgepodge is the worse of all worlds. Would I push to reorganize them at this point? No. It's not worth the effort. > I also question would these directories are really for, users or > developers ? I don't think users really get much exposure to them, > they don't really have much bearing on how users find and install > ports. For me, its more for the developers, so we should be flexible > in how they are grouped depending on what makes sense to whoever is > maintaining them. Users are exposed to them insofar as a port's primary category corresponds to the directory it's stored in. Do users use categories? I don't know. As a developer, I don't even bother looking at the location of ports because the organization of the ports tree is so inconsistent. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
