From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 15 08:44:53 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 EF2B316A464; Mon, 15 May 2006 08:44:52 +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 DC98343D86; Mon, 15 May 2006 08:44:50 +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 md50002557724.msg; Mon, 15 May 2006 09:44:37 +0100 Message-ID: <008b01c677fb$c99b4290$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Chris" , References: <446786CF.6050807@fromley.net> <3aaaa3a0605141906k2622e9dawe7e9bf7def72167@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:44:25 +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, Mon, 15 May 2006 09:44:37 +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, Mon, 15 May 2006 09:44:39 +0100 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Spadge , "freebsd-questions@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: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:44:56 -0000 Chris wrote: > On 15/05/06, fbsd wrote: > Keep the ports tree how it is, as others have said the size is small > on modern hard drives and bandwidth trivial, once the initial ports > tree is in place keeping it up to date needs very little bandwidth and > its only distfiles that tend to be large, but you only download > distfiles for ports you install so this is a very good system. If at > least one person uses a port it is justified and I very much like that > most tiny apps I search for in the ports tree do indeed exist. How > would you define commonly used ports? we would end up with a > favouritism system in place and many arguments about which ports would > be included in the commonly used group, you also forget that many > ports that may look meaningless from where you sit are necessary as > dependants to other ports. There would be not arguments as stats dont lie. Please read the entire thread there are some good ideas in there which would speed up day to day use of ports for everyone. Where you get the idea that ports is quick to maintain is beyond me it takes a good 30mins to sync up if your a few months out of date now a days. 30mins is not much if you have 1 machine but add it all up for a large number of machines and its a significant amount of time which we all could better spend doing other things instead of waiting for a cvsup to complete. > Is php4 out of date? no its still been maintained and is more suitable > for many people, likewise with mysql 4.1. Openssl 0.9.7 all are older > branches but not out of date. The ports system is very clever in how > it is so adaptive eg. Ruby needs openssl and if you have 0.9.7 it sets > that as the dependency rather then 0.9.8. No hacking of makefiles > needed. No ones saying they are, we use mysql 4.0 here but as what's being suggested would: 1. use real world usage stats 2. provide a much faster way of obtaining just the ports you want Then there are now down falls that I can see, only the benefit of being able to update from ports much much quicker than is currently possible. 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.