Growing list of required(ish) ports

Robert Simmons rsimmons0 at
Mon Apr 8 03:20:05 UTC 2013

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at> wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 8:47 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD?
>> 1) ports-mgmt/pkg
>> 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports
>> 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit
>> 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster
>> It seems to me like these belong in the base system.
> On the contrary, the idea is that more and more should come *out of
> base* and into ports. Base is very static and stuck in time. By moving
> these things into ports, you are able to get updates much simpler. No
> need for an errata or security advisory or release. Just updating with
> portmaster/pkg upgrade.

I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps there needs to be
movement in both directions.

I may be way off the mark here, but I'd love to spark a discussion
about this.  I think that in general things that are directly FreeBSD
projects belong in base.  Examples would be pkgng, and making
dialog4ports a switch in dialog(1).  Essentially, code that does not
have an upstream should be in base.

On the other hand, there are a number of things that I think should be
pulled out of base.  Some already have ports, and others would need
ports created.  Examples of things to pull out of base are OpenSSL,
Heimdal, OpenSSH, PF, ntpd, ipfilter, bind, sendmail, and others.
Code that is typically way behind the upstream project basically.

> portaudit is not needed with pkg, just use 'pkg audit'.

I had missed that.  Thanks!

>> Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added
>> to dialog(1) as a switch?
> --
> Regards,
> Bryan Drewery
> bdrewery at freenode/EFNet

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list