Has the port collection become to large to handle.

Adrian Pavone wingot at eftel.com
Mon May 15 08:11:36 UTC 2006

Spadge wrote:

> 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 
> versions?
>> **** 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 
> php5/mysql4 version? Or do the majority of users use php4 still? And 
> are there more test boxes than there are production servers?
> Is it fair to say the most commonly used ports are not the most 
> commonly used packages? I would imagine that something like KDE would 
> be a hugely popular package, on account of the sheer size of the 
> beast, but that it wouldn't be the most popular port due to the number 
> of people who don't run a GUI on their system.
> 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.
>> ******** 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 the 
> 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.
> 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.
> Now, Marc G. Fournier's dynamic personalised ports tree suggestion ... 
> that's a *real* idea.
Agreed in full.

Cookies and similar are, in my opinion, invasive, and this is why I have 
my browser set to ask me each time, and get rid of anf I accept when I 
close the browser. But other people love the benefits of cookies. Choice 
is the only real power.

And, Marc G. Fournier definitely had something with his description of 
how the port system should work, when I read his post I was thinking 
that is exactly how I would have designed it as well (admittedly, when 
it was designed, it wasn't the size it is now).


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list