Has the port collection become to large to handle.

Spadge spadge at fromley.net
Sun May 14 15:24:42 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 port 
... and then a bunch of people are trusted to audit the ports before the 
update is allowed in to the ports tree.

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

New word: "secure".

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 fully 
expect myself to be one of those people who uses quite a few ports that 
would never make it on to that list. And it's not like I do a lot weird 
stuff, either. I just think that with the number of fbsd users on this 
planet, coupled with the number of ports in the tree ... well, there's 
going to be an awful lot of minorities.

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 have 
a privacy disclaimer and an opt-out option. So much for streamlining.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list