From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 00:32:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB5616A408; Sun, 14 May 2006 00:32:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FA443D46; Sun, 14 May 2006 00:32:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50002555710.msg; Sun, 14 May 2006 01:31:26 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c676ed$bd1f2720$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: , "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" , "Garance A Drosihn" References: Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 01:31:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Sun, 14 May 2006 01:31:26 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Sun, 14 May 2006 01:31:26 +0100 Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:32:36 -0000 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > 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 refused to include their > favorite port in the "important" category. I doubt > you will find anyone who wants to volunteer for the > role of , because that is certainly the > only name which will be used to describe whoever > chooses which ports are in the special category. How about implement a system where by ports register their usage to a central server. This will give us some very useful stats about port usage and after some time this is examind and all ports whos usage falls under a given measure ( to be decided again by stats ) said port is moved to a secondary port group. We could also use this info to prune ports not getting any use at all. In addition to that a method of syncing ports indivitually might be an alternative way to go. That way instead of syncing the many thousands of ports to compile up the latest version of XXX you would only have to download the port you wanted and any dependencies. Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.