From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 16:27:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B83216A406 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:27:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from james@netinertia.co.uk) Received: from starbug.netinertia.co.uk (starbug.netinertia.co.uk [217.147.82.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B64843D48 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:27:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from james@netinertia.co.uk) Received: from croydon.netinertia.co.uk ([82.69.247.45] helo=[10.1.0.82]) by starbug.netinertia.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FfJSd-0003PO-WB for ports@freebsd.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 17:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: <44675A3F.4000503@netinertia.co.uk> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:26:39 +0100 From: James O'Gorman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NetI-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Cc: Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:27:19 -0000 fbsd wrote: > Spadge wrote: >> Because they don't. The port maintainer is trusted to maintain the >> port ... and then a bunch of people are trusted to audit the ports >> before the update is allowed in to the ports tree. >> >> Or at least, that's how I thought it worked. > > ********* 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. Question: How would you handle this for the ~4000 ports that are unmaintained? (MAINTAINER set to ports@FreeBSD.org) Or similarly, for when someone who isn't the maintainer of a port submits an update? This person is then no longer the "trusted maintainer", as you put it. [snip] >> Also, I think the idea of having a central database to monitor >> which ports are used has privacy issues, which will require every >> port to have a privacy disclaimer and an opt-out option. So much >> for streamlining. > > ******** 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. Perhaps a better suggestion for this would be a similar approach to what I believe the Debian project did - the Debian Popularity Contest. They created a package which, when installed setup a cronjob to anonymously email the developers periodically statistics about your installed packages. This then makes it "opt-in", rather than mandatory. However, as someone said earlier, unless a significant number of people were to use this the statistics collected would be next to useless. But in any case, are the misc/instant-workstation and misc/instant-server ports not sufficient for this sort of thing? They are simply meta-ports which "depend" on ports common to their respective tasks. James