Has the port collection become to large to handle.

Spadge spadge at fromley.net
Sun May 14 20:54:05 UTC 2006

fbsd wrote:

> ***  again you are missing the point. Streaminglining would still
> occurs
> because only the most used ports would have packages not the whole
> collection.
> The work load would still be reduced. ****
In your opinion. Roughly what percentage would make it through to the 
'most used list' do you think?
> ***** 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
> additional
> versions of the package results in greater ease of package use by
> the package installers *****
So the People who currently make no packages are now making four of 
them, and people running mysql3 are expected to manage on their own, and 
for some reason this reduces the workload?
> *****  such large GUI desktop packages would be part of the common
> category for the reason you state. I am sure there are other GUI
> desktop
> packages like openoffice that would be included by default. *****
Have you considered PCBSD? They've worked long and hard covering exactly 
this sort of thing, making BSD into a viable graphical desktop/server 
environment, and done more than a great job of it.

For instance ... http://www.pbidir.com/packages.php?code=224
> 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. *******
If you're referring to "Of course some precautions in counting the
hits to the special purpose FreeBSD website would have to be used
to drop attempts by people trying to manipulate the results in
favor of some particular port." then I fail to see how this addresses 
the problem, other than calling for someone else to come up with an idea 
to fix it.

Needless to say, any mechanism short of manual human intervention is 
going to be unreliable and fairly easy to work around, given the desire 
to do so.
> **** 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. ************
Again, in your opinion. Also, not always my first port of call when 
looking for great upholders of personal privacy, but that's not a 
discussion suitable for this thread.

Some people disable cookies. Whether they are in their right mind or not 
is their business, and the option remains in every browser to allow them 
or not. In much the same way that people can choose to take, or ignore, 
> I can totally understand why you think this system would be better
> for
> 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
> **********

I was refraining from attacking people. Also, I feel it is fair to say 
that this thread's history starts somewhere before the start of the 
thread. Naturally, you may disagree.

I fully expect to have approximately no reputation on this list to 
tarnish or otherwise. I honestly don't think I have said anything even 
remotely memorable yet.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list