From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4dd387fd75c33dc431653175a6c71940@proxima.alt.za> To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:16:37 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <7d3530221003071037k66e4e6e0k741c872ad91a41c8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e293d490-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Wouldn't grouping be a matter of placing a "category" file in the > package? I'm reading "grouping" as the kind of divisions you get in > Ports, i.e. net, editor, util, language, etc. Thing is, the "port" hierarchy (hereto I used "NetBSD package system" for the same concept) provides both the hierarchical structure I believe is needed to minimise duplication and a description file to search for concepts rather than file names. So, yes, I agree with a portion of your suggestion, but not your suggested implementation. In practice, all I'm proposing is replacing directories owned by individual contributors with a hierarchy that undergoes a useful amount of validation. I'm sure that fgb's contrib, possibly with manageable alterations, will successfully deal with my proposal, with the reservation that we probably want a selection mechanism that reduces the magnitude of updates/replications to manageable proportions. The NetBSD packages hierarchy skeleton is gargantuan, I think we ought to provide tools to trim down any new implementation of it, but I have not thought to any extent how we'd do that. ++L