On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:55:22AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> I want to tweak the directory structure for ports.
> I'd like to go for a lot of stuff to
>
> ports/infrastructure/bin
> ports/infrastructure/lib
> ports/infrastructure/man
>
> the current setup (build, fetch, install, package) is my mistake, and
> frankly it sucks. Some of the scripts are callable outside of bsd.port.mk,
> and you have to remember the path. There is no standard documentation out
> of the scripts, and there are a few perl modules that could use one
> single place.
>
> I would keep db, plist, templates. I don't think they're that confusing.
>
> The only drawback is that we're going to lose cvs history. doesn't seem
> like such a big problem to me. Also, third party may lose "compatibility"
> as scripts move around. That's easy to solve with symlinks, so I don't
> care too much.
>
> Did I miss anything ?
Something you may also want to consider: currently, you can't really
install a partial ports tree. If all modules were kept in e.g.
ports/infrastructure/modules, it may be possible to install only a
hypothetical ports-infrastructure.tar.gz (like sys.tar.gz, but for
ports) and a couple of individual ports (e.g. under mystuff/).
This would make it very easy to upgrade just one package on a -stable
system (e.g. to fix a security issue or get an updated port from
-current). It would be even better if FETCH_PACKAGES could be made to
work in this scenario, but that's not required.
This is in no way a must-have feature, but if you're moving stuff
anyway...
Joachim
--
TFMotD: sigvec (3) - software signal facilities
