Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:18:16 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: fbsd@a1poweruser.com, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. Message-ID: <p06230939c08c16a1821f@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGIEPBHGAA.fbsd@a1poweruser.com> References: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGIEPBHGAA.fbsd@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:28 PM -0400 5/13/06, fbsd wrote: >To all question list readers; > >Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you >draw the line that its too large to be downloading >the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of >them? This is a good question. For all those people who want to roll their eyes and ignore this question, please answer it. Where *DO* you draw the line? Obviously it's not at 10,000 ports. Will it be 20,000? 50,000? How many programs exist? Will every single program known to man eventually be in the ports collection? How hopeless is that? And if not, then "Where do you draw the line?". >What are your thoughts about requesting the ports >group to create a new category containing just the >ports most commonly used including their dependents >and making this general category the default used >to download. Unfortunately, this is the wrong solution. I'm sure you will love this *IFF* (that means "if and ONLY if") all of *YOUR* ports are in that category of important ports. We have 15,000 ports because every single one of those ports has some users who think that specific port is important. While I'm sure that some ports will be willing to be in the "second tier" category, I suspect you'll still have thousands of ports with hundreds of thousands of users who will be personally insulted if <someBastard> refused to include their favorite port in the "important" category. I doubt you will find anyone who wants to volunteer for the role of <someBastard>, because that is certainly the only name which will be used to describe whoever chooses which ports are in the special category. We need some more dramatic restructuring of ports to really solve the issue. Your suggestion is a very small bandaid, and will just result in more fighting and ill-will instead of solving anything. All of this is just my opinion, of course. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06230939c08c16a1821f>