Has the port collection become to large to handle.

Steven Hartland killing at multiplay.co.uk
Mon May 15 08:44:56 UTC 2006

Chris wrote:
> On 15/05/06, fbsd <fbsd at a1poweruser.com> wrote:
> 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.

There would be not arguments as stats dont lie. Please read the entire
thread there are some good ideas in there which would speed up day to day
use of ports for everyone. Where you get the idea that ports is quick to
maintain is beyond me it takes a good 30mins to sync up if your a few
months out of date now a days. 30mins is not much if you have 1 machine
but add it all up for a large number of machines and its a significant
amount of time which we all could better spend doing other things instead
of waiting for a cvsup to complete.

> Is php4 out of date?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 branches but not out of date.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
> needed.

No ones saying they are, we use mysql 4.0 here but as what's being
suggested would:
1. use real world usage stats
2. provide a much faster way of obtaining just the ports you want

Then there are now down falls that I can see, only the benefit of being
able to update from ports much much quicker than is currently possible.


This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
or return the E.mail to postmaster at multiplay.co.uk.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list