Removing Cruft from the ports tree

Andriy Gapon avg at
Fri Apr 1 19:09:15 UTC 2011

on 01/04/2011 08:57 Matthew D. Fuller said the following:
> So, while removing OPTIONS alone may be good, we really need to
> dismantle the system that caused the need for them in the first place
> to avoid creating a greater mess.  I think it coud be useful to turn
> to Wikipedia for an example (and indeed, not just an example, but a
> pre-built distribution system!).  By simply eliminating any sort of
> officially "blessed" ports tree (with all the complications and
> liabilities that entails), encouraging users to set up Wikipedia pages
> with recipes for building packages, and building a little
> infrastructure (using sufficient tools already existing in the base
> system; we can easily backport to 6.x and beyond) for fetching them
> down and building on request, we can free up an enormous amount of
> machine- and man-power, while making the result far more democratic.
> Really, the only significant challenge is rogue vandalism, but again,
> Wikipedia itself has already developed systems for handling that.  It
> may take a little effort on our part to keep that up for our
> particular needs, but surely far less than is currently required.  And
> as an additional bonus, by having it available on an easily-editable
> wiki, we can save all the trouble of submitting and load of dealing
> with PR's, and reduce our dependance on gnats too.  It's pretty much
> all upside, when you think about it.

I really love your proposal, especially when I recall deletionism.

Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe? ;-)
Andriy Gapon

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list