Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:57:44 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing Cruft from the ports tree Message-ID: <20110401055744.GY44849@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikmyPyY8q1xN47_dH3D6ndFoXYDaM3F%2BtWdFKe0@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTikmyPyY8q1xN47_dH3D6ndFoXYDaM3F%2BtWdFKe0@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:55:02PM -0400 I heard the voice of Eitan Adler, and lo! it spake thus: > > Not only that but because maintainers would be able to choose the > best possible configuration for the their port users would no longer > have to mess around. This doesn't sound like a good idea. Options are important for the capability they provide in routing around maintainer foibles, as well as mere configurability in the abstract. They provide an important mechanism for crowdsourcing the optimal setup; sadly we've not managed to properly collect and capitalize on the data, but that's no reason to assume we can't in the future. If we remove that workaround, I think we need to recognize that it's just going to create a larger problem, and remove the stranglehold maintainers have over what the user sees. To be sure, nothing stops other entities from distributing ports already, but with the current setup the FreeBSD Project as a whole really applies a strong imprimatur on the single maintainer-blessed setup, which is hard to overcome even by the full community of users. So, while removing OPTIONS alone may be good, we really need to dismantle the system that caused the need for them in the first place to avoid creating a greater mess. I think it coud be useful to turn to Wikipedia for an example (and indeed, not just an example, but a pre-built distribution system!). By simply eliminating any sort of officially "blessed" ports tree (with all the complications and liabilities that entails), encouraging users to set up Wikipedia pages with recipes for building packages, and building a little infrastructure (using sufficient tools already existing in the base system; we can easily backport to 6.x and beyond) for fetching them down and building on request, we can free up an enormous amount of machine- and man-power, while making the result far more democratic. Really, the only significant challenge is rogue vandalism, but again, Wikipedia itself has already developed systems for handling that. It may take a little effort on our part to keep that up for our particular needs, but surely far less than is currently required. And as an additional bonus, by having it available on an easily-editable wiki, we can save all the trouble of submitting and load of dealing with PR's, and reduce our dependance on gnats too. It's pretty much all upside, when you think about it. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110401055744.GY44849>