Has the port collection become to large to handle.

fbsd fbsd at a1poweruser.com
Sun May 14 14:08:21 UTC 2006

fbsd wrote:
> The fact is the maintainer is all ready being trusted to
> manage the port so I see no reason NOT to trust him to
> create the matching package.

Because they don't. The port maintainer is trusted to maintain the
... and then a bunch of people are trusted to audit the ports before
update is allowed in to the ports tree.

Or at least, that's how I thought it worked.

*********  so working with in that same procedure the  maintainer
passes the packages to the audit people and they pass it on.
No problem with this at all.

> Even the need of the secure massive package built process is
> now questionable.
> The resources and time needed for performing the
> secure massive package built must impact the release timeline of
> new FreeBSD releases. Doing away with it may streamline many
> other different internal release process.

The personalised dynamic ports tree is by far the best suggestion so
far. A 'most commonly used' ports tree is a daft idea, IMHO, and I
expect myself to be one of those people who uses quite a few ports
would never make it on to that list. And it's not like I do a lot
stuff, either. I just think that with the number of fbsd users on
planet, coupled with the number of ports in the tree ... well,
going to be an awful lot of minorities.

**** the port make method will still be there for all ports with
limited usage history, it will just not have a package for it
it has limited usage.

Also, I think the idea of having a central database to monitor which
ports are used has privacy issues, which will require every port to
a privacy disclaimer and an opt-out option. So much for

******** There is no privacy issues. Passing cookies is normal and
done as matter of fact by most commercial websites and any website
uses php session control makes cookies by default.
This is a no-issue issue.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list