ports/www is too full

[Adam Weinberger]

>> (10.22.2004 @ 0345 PST): Edwin Groothuis said, in 52K: <<
> Ports/www is too full: 755 ports.
> 
> I have kind of sorted (partly brute-force, partly eye-work) and
> came up with the attached splits:
> 
> 	www-servers		 48
> 	www-servers-modules	115
> 	www-proxy		 27
> 
> 	www-browsers		 77
> 
> 	www-apps		 26
> 	www-apps-cms		 24
> 	www-apps-images		 13
> 	www-apps-rss		  9
> 	www-apps-wiki		 21
> 	www-apps-zope		 41
> 
> 	www-devel		 11
> 	www-devel-perl		176
> 	www-devel-php		 19
> 	www-devel-python	 12
> 	www-devel-ruby  	 11
> 
> 	www-editors   		 29
> 	www-log			 27
> 	www-ml			 17
> 	www-spiders		 25
> 
> 	www-misc		 19
> 
> 	www			  0
> 
> I'm missing 8 ports somewhere, but the idea is there.
> Of course these categories aren't written in stone and I'm not going
> to defend them regiously[sp], but it gives an idea what is there.
> 
> Maybe even splitting pf www-servers*, www-clients and www-proxy
> 
> I am willing to volunteer for this job, but I think it's more the
> cvsmeisters which will curse than I am.
> 
> Comments? Remarks? Support? Ideas? Hostile takeovers?
>> end of "ports/www is too full" from Edwin Groothuis <<

Portmgr has been, for quite some time now, looking into adding an extra
tier to the ports tree. Assuming that they haven't abandoned the idea,
I'd say it's best to divide www into subcategories, instead of 20 main
categories.

# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
adamw at magnesium.net || adamw at FreeBSD.org
adamw at vectors.cx    ||   adamw at gnome.org
http://www.vectors.cx