From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 11:02:50 2004 Return-Path: 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 864AB16A4CE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:02:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ip209-154.digitalrealm.net (ip193-227.digitalrealm.net [216.144.193.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCAE43D2D for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:02:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from laszlof@vonostingroup.com) Received: (qmail 39988 invoked by uid 1003); 27 Oct 2004 11:04:34 -0000 Received: from laszlof@vonostingroup.com by ritamari.vonostingroup.com by uid 89 with qmail-scanner-1.22 (clamscan: 0.65. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:1(68.32.91.145):. Processed in 1.032245 secs); 27 Oct 2004 11:04:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?68.32.91.145?) (laszlof@vonostingroup.com@68.32.91.145) by ip193-227.digitalrealm.net with SMTP; 27 Oct 2004 11:04:32 -0000 Message-ID: <417F80D2.2000209@vonostingroup.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:04:50 -0400 From: "Frank J. Laszlo" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jie Gao References: <20041022074529.GN10363@k7.mavetju> <639522fe04102612404109e5e7@mail.gmail.com> <20041026194725.GR94897@seekingfire.com> <639522fe04102616204f74bf14@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <639522fe04102616204f74bf14@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/www is too full X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:02:50 -0000 Jie Gao wrote: >They are different if we do not have powerful search utilities. But >when we have good search tools both searching and browsing will >benefit from it. Look at the WWW search engines (google, yahoo, ...). >Almost all of them have web site directories, which are for browsing >but benefit a lot from the search technologies. > >If we have good logical categories for the ports, and have good >indexing and searching tools, it does not matter where the ports are >physically put. And surely a better interface for browsing can be >built on top of that. > > How about freshports? Regards, Frank