Removing and replacing with FreshPorts

Simon L. Nielsen simon at
Mon Nov 8 16:06:13 PST 2004

On 2004.11.08 01:43:37 -0800, Sam Nilsson wrote:
> Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> >Second I don't really think /ports/ (the web site) is that that
> >critical.  If it was, more people would have complained that for a
> >very long time the ports web pages were very out-of-date.
> Maybe not experienced users, but I think that many newbies wouldn't know 
> that the pages were out of date.

No, it wasn't really possible to see either unless one chekked count
of the ports at the bottom of , but the
pages were based on information from the last release (the INDEX file
from CVS).

> I personally find the freebsd ports page to be much more straightforward 
> and userfriendly especially at first. Once one is accustomed to ports 
> and, they may not use /ports/ anymore, but as a newbie, 
> it is really nice to have.

OK nice to know.  It's a bit hard to see just from the web server
statistics if people actually use the content of the /ports/ pages.

> Of course, as I said, I didn't know about the pages being out of date. 
> Has that problem been addressed or is that the real issue here and I'm 
> just totally missing the point (in which case sorry)?

It has been fixed about a month ago (I think it was), so they should
now in general not be more than 12 hours out-of-date compared to the
actual state of the Ports Collection in the FreeBSD CVS repository.

The reason for proposing to remove /ports/ was that I personally don't
find the pages very useful, compared to freshports, and I have heard
others say the same thing.

Simon L. Nielsen
FreeBSD Documentation Team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-www mailing list