Has the port collection become to large to handle.
mistry.7 at osu.edu
Sat May 13 19:11:53 UTC 2006
On Saturday 13 May 2006 14:28, fbsd wrote:
> To all question list readers;
> Now in 6.1 there is problems with packages that have not been
> recreated using the new system make file.
> This problem is caused by there being no mandatory requirement on
> the ports maintainers to recreate the packages any time one of the
> dependants change or when changes are made to the canned make
> or when dependants show up as broken. Yes I know what a large task
> this is and that it requires a lot of run time to accomplish.
> So my question is how do we users make our needs known
> to the ports maintainer group so that will seriously address
> the problem of the packages being outdated?
It isn't a port maintainer's job to build the package, though it is
their job to make sure it is able to be packaged.
> What are your thoughts about requesting the ports group to create
> a new category containing just the ports most commonly used
> their dependents and making this general category the default
> used to download. This would be a much smaller sized download
> containing everything necessary to build the most used ports.
> Many of the dependents are used over and over by many
> different port applications.
> This new category would them be given priority in keeping
> their packages up to date. Could even take this idea one step
> and say that only ports in this category will have packages
> built and keep up to date. All ports not in this special
> category will not have packages built at all. I think this
> would help the port group to better manager their people resources
> and serve the needs of the user community better.
This just sounds like it will require too much maintenance.
The best person to comment on this would probably be Kris Kennaway,
but from what I understand most of the up to date package issues
could solved by just thowing more hardware at the problem.
Also you may want to look at the want list.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060513/29907efc/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports