From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 15 08:54:58 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 44C3816A584; Mon, 15 May 2006 08:54:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kyrreny@broadpark.no) Received: from osl1smout1.broadpark.no (osl1smout1.broadpark.no [80.202.4.58]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316E743D69; Mon, 15 May 2006 08:54:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kyrreny@broadpark.no) Received: from osl1sminn1.broadpark.no ([80.202.4.59]) by osl1smout1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IZA00BHJU3EXB20@osl1smout1.broadpark.no>; Mon, 15 May 2006 10:54:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from urban.broadpark.no ([80.203.212.30]) by osl1sminn1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IZA00MNSU3DZ020@osl1sminn1.broadpark.no>; Mon, 15 May 2006 10:54:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:54:54 +0200 From: Kyrre Nygard To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060515105450.02217e80@broadpark.no> Message-id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060514143308.00ec0438@broadpark.no> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Cc: ports@freebsd.org 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: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:54:58 -0000 At 20:28 13.05.2006, 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? >The port collection is growing at a ever increasing rate per month. >The mass majority of the ports are so special purpose that only a >very few people have need of them. Sure there are ways to limit >the categories you select to download, but still the size of >the most used categories is too large and loaded with ports not >commonly used by the general user. > >So people them use the packages. But the problem with the >packages is they are not updated every time changes are >made to the port they were created from. Also packages that >have dependants like php4/php5 or mysql4/mysql5 are not being >updated to use the newer versions of those dependants as they come >out. > >I for one think the port/package collection has already grown to >large to handle in it's present state. >Users are consuming massive bandwidth to download and it >consumes a very large chunk of disk space. Saying nothing about >the wasted resources consumed to back it up repeatedly. > >I have gone to using the package version for everything and >only downloading the ports config files for packages that >I need to compile from scratch to change some add on function. >This methodology has worked fine since FreeBSD version 3.0 as >I used each new release of FreeBSD up to 6.1. > >Now in 6.1 there is problems with packages that have not been >recreated using the new system make file. >This problem is caused by there being no mandatory requirement on >the ports maintainers to recreate the packages any time one of the >dependants change or when changes are made to the canned make >process >or when dependants show up as broken. Yes I know what a large task >this is and that it requires a lot of run time to accomplish. > >So my question is how do we users make our needs known >to the ports maintainer group so that will seriously address >the problem of the packages being outdated? > >Are there other people on this list who are dissatisfied with the >packages and the problems associated with using packages and ports >mixed together? > >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. This would be a much smaller sized download >containing everything necessary to build the most used ports. >Many of the dependents are used over and over by many >different port applications. > >This new category would them be given priority in keeping >their packages up to date. Could even take this idea one step >further >and say that only ports in this category will have packages >built and keep up to date. All ports not in this special >category will not have packages built at all. I think this >would help the port group to better manager their people resources >and serve the needs of the user community better. > >Another idea I would like to throw out to the list is how about >requesting the ports group to add a function to packages so the >installer of the package can select what version of the dependent >components should be included in the install. >Much like "make config" does in the ports system? >The packages system already automatically launches the download >of dependent packages so why not give the installer the option to >select which version of the dependent to fetch. >Like in php4/5 or mysql4/5 or apache 13/20. This way the package >is more flexible and the port maintainer does not have to build >a different version of the parent package for each version of >the dependant which is available. > >The whole idea behind this post is to give the general users who >reads this questions list an opportunity to brainstorm about ways to >make the ports/package collection better and easier to use. >This may help the ports group in understanding the needs and >direction we the users would like to see the management of >the collection to take. >If we don't speak up they will just think things are ok as they are >now. >FreeBSD is a public project. The ports group are not the only >users who can give input about the direction and policies >concerning the future of the ports/package collection. > > >All feedback welcome. Hello! I would just like to direct you to one of my previous threads: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-March/115402.html It was not warmly welcomed though. All the best, Kyrre