From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 8 04:09:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9381C10656BA; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 04:09:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBB08FC1E; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 04:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so5540328vws.13 for ; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.60.6 with SMTP id n6mr211260vch.245.1283918962813; Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.200.8 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:09:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [71.1.133.114] In-Reply-To: <4C86F769.2020704@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C866AB3.4030802@lapo.it> <4C868650.7090504@FreeBSD.org> <4C869EA8.4020002@lapo.it> <4C86F769.2020704@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:09:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Stanislav Sedov , Andrew Pantyukhin , Lapo Luchini , Martin Wilke Subject: Re: XPI infrastructure needs some love 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: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:09:24 -0000 On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 19:39, Doug Barton wrote: > > My concern with this for some time is that there is little to no actual > benefit for the vast majority of these ports, however they do consume > resources. Admittedly not an overwhelming number of resources, but given the > fact that ports/package resources are stretched thin, and we'd like to > expand support for packages going forward, I think we need to carefully > evaluate these choices, especially given that we're losing maintainers. As a > quick overview I did a find for ports with xpi in the name and there are > well over 100. That doesn't include other ports with different naming > conventions. > > My suggestion is that we simply eliminate these ports altogether, but I > realize that's not likely to happen. :) Around 6 months ago, a similar thing was proposed for a number of eclipse plugins - they can all be installed and updated via the builtin update manager and nothing is built for FreeBSD - they are just Java stuff that can be binary downloaded and run anywhere. People wanted them kept because in a corporate environment the admin can provide a consistent version to all users and update them using whatever methods they already use for other ports. -- Rob Farmer