category for VPN softwares?

[Mathieu Arnold]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:34:57PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:29:09AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:24 AM Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:13:58AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:37 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 10:58, Stefan Esser <se at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Am 02.04.19 um 07:42 schrieb Koichiro Iwao:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:41:51AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > > > > > >> Create a real category vpn and move everything to it ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds better! Gentoo has net-vpn category. Just FYI, Gentoo also have
> > > > > > > net-dialup category. PPP/PPPoE/L2TP softwares are put under net-dialup
> > > > > > > but I feel that classification is too fine. At least creating vpn or
> > > > > > > net-vpn souds good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about a new "real" category vpn
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if it should be vpn or net-vpn. I feel net-vpn is
> > > > > more suitable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and preserving the current categories
> > > > > > of the ports as their additional categories (assuming that they are in net
> > > > > > vs. security for a reason).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Creating new categories is absolutely doable! However, we have a
> > > > pretty high bar for justifying it. There's no magic number, but our
> > > > (portmgr's) precedent is that the new category must, at the time of
> > > > creation, be as full as other categories like it.
> > > >
> > > > The most important thing in the new category proposal is a
> > > > comprehensive list of ports that will be moved to it. Put that into a
> > > > review or a PR and we can move forward. Fair warning though, if it's
> > > > only about a dozen ports, it most likely will not be approved.
> > > >
> > > > My approach here is that new categories should be virtual unless the
> > > > evidence for hard category is incontrovertible.
> > >
> > > It's far easier making a virtual category and easier to count ports.
> > > e.g. https://www.freshports.org/hamradio
> > >
> > > We have 101 hamradio related ports with more coming...
> > > korean has 43,portuguese has 15,russian has 42 although languages are a
> > > special case palm has 15 ports but whatever. ;)
> > >
> > > I'd be surprised if there weren't more vpn ports than 101 so why not
> > > go with a virtual ports category to start with?
> > 
> > Hi Diane,
> > 
> > That's a great approach to it! AFAIK we haven't explicitly used
> > virtual categories as a staging ground for hard categories, but that
> > seems like a really pragmatic approach; no matter the outcome, the
> > ports tree comes out ahead.
> > 
> > # Adam
> 
> Just to say, having a new "real" category will force people to rework their
> entry list for poudriere, reinstall things if they are using portmaster etc.

For poudriere, it is transparent as it parses MOVED, and new physical
categories add entries in there. I think it will tell you something
about it too.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20190402/db094aea/attachment.sig>