Re: Separate subdir or category for "current" packages?

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:25:53AM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> >   Hello!
> 
> > I think that we have enough packages that track VCS repositories.
> > These packages differ from the rest in two points:
> > a) they're not going to enter pkgsrc ever;
> > b) they're updated rather regulary and are almost always in "ready" state.
> 
> > I propose to mark them in some way or even move them from "wip" into
> > separate subdirectory.  Opinions?
> In my view it is enough to name those package as xxx-current (or
> xxx-devel, doesn't matter) and ONE and only one naming convention should
> be used by all commiters).

We moved away from that kind of separate subdirectory some time ago -
Japanese-specific ones, Athena ones, corba one(s), etc.  Now we do
everything based on primary category.  Secondary/virtual categories
are specified in the Makefile, and get linked in via symlink at binary
package creation time.

I don't see anything to be gained, and only valuable context lost, by
reverting that policy. If I want to look for a browser, I know where to
look. I don't want to have to look in multiple directories.

And, yes, I know our category placement isn't ideal, and owes a lot to
developer caprice at pkgsrc import time, and also a layer of inertia
which has been gained with package-road_roller. But that's no excuse for
exacerbating the problem.

Thanks,
Alistair

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list
pkgsrc-wip-discuss%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss