Has the port collection become to large to handle.
chrcoluk at gmail.com
Mon May 15 02:06:33 UTC 2006
On 15/05/06, fbsd <fbsd at a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> Your comments are becoming more and more meaningless.
> You are no longer contributing to the brainstorming of this thread.
> Your attempt to engage a argument have failed.
> All posts from you will go unanswered as you are now on my troll
> kill list.
> 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
> 'most used list' do you think? *** no way to even make a guess *****
> > ***** yes the port maintainer of phpmyadmin would create 4
> > 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,
> for some reason this reduces the workload? *** quite trying to put
> in my mouth. You know just as well as I that is not what was said.
> > ***** 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
> this sort of thing, making BSD into a viable graphical
> environment, and done more than a great job of it.
> For instance ... http://www.pbidir.com/packages.php?code=224
> ******** I fail to see how this has anything to do with this thread
> as covered by the OP. Please stay on topic. **********
> > 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
> > 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
> the problem, other than calling for someone else to come up with an
> 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
> to do so. ****** yes that is the section you cut out to give meaning
> to you previous comments. It doesn't take a expert programmer to
> the simple code to notice a flood of hits from the same ip address
> the same port within some given elapse time period. *******
> > **** This is absurd statement. On today's public internet no one
> > their right mind turns off cookies because it causes errors when
> > Cookies contain no personal information that is why there is no
> > 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
> is their business, and the option remains in every browser to allow
> or not. In much the same way that people can choose to take, or
> > 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
> 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
> remotely memorable yet.
> **** That statement is the only memorable thing you have said so
> far. LOL *****
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
Keep the ports tree how it is, as others have said the size is small
on modern hard drives and bandwidth trivial, once the initial ports
tree is in place keeping it up to date needs very little bandwidth and
its only distfiles that tend to be large, but you only download
distfiles for ports you install so this is a very good system. If at
least one person uses a port it is justified and I very much like that
most tiny apps I search for in the ports tree do indeed exist. How
would you define commonly used ports? we would end up with a
favouritism system in place and many arguments about which ports would
be included in the commonly used group, you also forget that many
ports that may look meaningless from where you sit are necessary as
dependants to other ports.
Is php4 out of date? no its still been maintained and is more suitable
for many people, likewise with mysql 4.1. Openssl 0.9.7 all are older
branches but not out of date. The ports system is very clever in how
it is so adaptive eg. Ruby needs openssl and if you have 0.9.7 it sets
that as the dependency rather then 0.9.8. No hacking of makefiles
More information about the freebsd-ports