-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Alan Barrett wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Jim Wise wrote:
>> Log Message:
>> Now that we have real build system support for syspkgs, remove someone's
>> half-implemented idea of building `syspkgs' (really a few giant blobs of the
>> same granularity of the old sets) using install(1).
>
>I thought that the plan was to improve the ability to place syspkg tags
>in the metalog, with a view to eventually removing the "lists" files.
>Your commit seems to be in opposition to that goal.

That's a worthy goal, but this was an insane way to try to get there.  
This `solution' never supported placing different files from the same 
source directory in different syspkgs (except for a poorly-thought-out 
solution for some but not all documentation files), never supported 
syspkgs at a granularity finer than the current set granularity, and 
couldn't even correctly reproduce the current set configuration.  It 
also was never even half-way finished -- no thought was given to how 
this information would be _used_, it was just stuffed in the metalog and 
forgotten about.

It didn't work as intended, didn't get us closer to eliminating set 
files, and had not been updated in any way in _years_.

It would be perfectly reasonable for someone to propose a method of 
replacing the set lists with another information source.  This 
`solution' couldn't do that, and wasn't being worked on.  All it was 
doing was cluttering up share/mk, and making a lot of targets more 
confusing.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEGe97hfG1+Pg8jmsRAhzTAKCIdzrR4UjQTONHkclXoj+urCqmtACfWO5o
HCwtbL2AhEHNty6/5QKuvqs=
=8ypa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----