Proposal for a new repository layout

Randall Wood rhwood at
Wed Apr 25 09:34:35 PDT 2007

On Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 07:25AM, "Paul Guyot" <pguyot at> wrote:
>On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> 	I propose we start with those two trees and fill them up as  
>>> necessary, the first one being the existing trunk/dports which  
>>> would *have* to stay in sync with base/branches/release_x_y and  
>>> the second being a testbed for Portfiles that need unreleased  
>>> features and syntax to function (ports would be added to it as  
>>> needed, no need to mirror every single category and port in ports/ 
>>> released if the corresponding Portfile doesn't pack anything  
>>> different). I would like to make clear that our released Vs.  
>>> testing split would be with respect to our *Portfiles* and not to  
>>> the projects we port; that is, emacs and emacs-devel would still  
>>> be in the released tree as long as their Portfiles are in sync  
>>> with MacPorts released code. This is contrary to the a la Fink  
>>> "stable" Vs. "unstable" model, which we all know condemns stable  
>>> to always be incredibly out of date and pushes everyone to use the  
>>> unstable tree, while alerting users their computers could catch fire.
>> Having "released" and "testing" ports trees sound like a good idea.
>I disagree. What's the point of putting portfiles in testing?
>Who's going to move them to release when they are ready?
>How installation will pick them?

I agree that the release/testing branches of the ports tree is not a good idea, unless we very explicitely do not index one of the testing branch (you can't pick it up unless you cd to the directory and install--which is how I develop ports out of svn and then move them into svn).

However, versioning the Portfile API is a very good idea, provided that:
1) PortIndex is capable of either
    a) not indexing Portfiles with a PortSystem value that is too high and/or
    b) is capable of storing the PortSystem value in the index.
2) If 1b above, port is capable of ignoring Portfiles with a PortSystem value that exceeds the maximum capable value that port understands.

Randall Wood
rhwood at

"The ball is round. The game lasts ninety minutes. The rest is theory..."

More information about the macports-dev mailing list