Has the port collection become to large to handle.

fbsd fbsd at a1poweruser.com
Sun May 14 17:48:47 UTC 2006

fbsd wrote:
> fbsd wrote:

> *********  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.

Thus removing any kind of streamlining to speed up releases of new

***  again you are missing the point. Streaminglining would still
because only the most used ports would have packages not the whole
The work load would still be reduced. ****

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

And this is the crux of the matter. Would phpmyadmin have a
version? Or do the majority of users use php4 still? And are there
test boxes than there are production servers?

***** yes the port maintainer of phpmyadmin would create 4 packages,
One for php5/mysql4, php5/mysql5 php4/mysql4  php4/mysql5
This situation is very small when compared to the over all size of
the ports collection. The additional effort expended making
versions of the package results in greater ease of package use by
the package installers *****

Is it fair to say the most commonly used ports are not the most
used packages? I would imagine that something like KDE would be a
popular package, on account of the sheer size of the beast, but that
wouldn't be the most popular port due to the number of people who
run a GUI on their system.

*****  such large GUI desktop packages would be part of the common
category for the reason you state. I am sure there are other GUI
packages like openoffice that would be included by default. *****

There is also the fact that you could fairly easily abuse this
system if
you wanted your software to be included in the 'most commonly used'
list, by just hammering the server.

**** read the post you are replying to closer.
This was all ready addressed in the previous post. *******

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

Every browser on the planet has the option to disable cookies (in
same way that email clients have the option of indenting quoted
text -
it's a standard required feature). This is because it is a privacy
issue. Different people have different views on what privacy is or
isn't, and that's nine tenths of the entire point: we don't get to
decide what their privacy levels are, they do.

**** This is absurd statement. On today's public internet no one in
their right mind turns off cookies because it causes errors when you
try to access commercial websites. All search engines use cookies.
Cookies contain no personal information that is why there is no USA
federal privacy laws about them. ************

I can totally understand why you think this system would be better
you. I just hope you can understand why it wouldn't be better for
everyone, nor even for the majority of people.

***** Spadge, please refrain from trying to attack people voicing
their ideas on this public project mailing list. It only serves
to tarnish your own reputation on this list.  Again please read
the OP if you need to understand the purpose of this thread

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list