From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 1 19:09:15 2011 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 33F64106564A; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:09:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E458FC08; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id WAA29822; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:09:10 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Q5jiX-000Gx9-La; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:09:09 +0300 Message-ID: <4D9622D4.2060906@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:09:08 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110308 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" References: <20110401055744.GY44849@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20110401055744.GY44849@over-yonder.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Eitan Adler Subject: Re: Removing Cruft from the ports tree 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:09:15 -0000 on 01/04/2011 08:57 Matthew D. Fuller said the following: > 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. I really love your proposal, especially when I recall deletionism. P.S. Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe? ;-) -- Andriy Gapon