Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:20:28 -0400 From: J <jsunx1@bellsouth.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New category - ports/packages specific tools? Message-ID: <20060516172028.GA12500@brokedownpalace> In-Reply-To: <20060516124509.GC59051@iib.unsam.edu.ar> References: <20060515222815.GA2535@picobyte.net> <20060516124509.GC59051@iib.unsam.edu.ar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-05-16 (Tue) 09:45:09 [+0000], Fernan Aguero wrote: > +----[ Shaun Amott <shaun@inerd.com> (15.May.2006 20:10): > | > | There are lots of nifty tools in ports for handling ports and packages. > | It would be nice if they were all in one, easy to find place. > | > | I think there are enough of these kind of ports to warrant a new > | category. What does everyone think about this? > | > | I'm not sure on a name yet -- "freebsd", "ports", "tools", and > | "portutils" are my initial ideas. > > I like the proposed ports-mgmt and portutils. > Hi. First post to a *BSD list. Not sure it's appropriate, but perhaps a new user viewpoint is applicable here (and I have to start somewhere). Like many others, I favor reducing the number of categories, starting with the small ones (though a few, like devel could profitably be split because there are over 2000 items). And of course a sense of a sensible minimum for consideration makes sense, but I don't think it should be a rigid numerical cutoff. A category like this is so (retrospectively) obvious, logical, and seems so beneficial that it seems a shoe-in. Also, since it's most helpful to new users, I don't think a virtual category would be so good. As mentioned, patching the various documents to explain virtual categories better would be a first step there. As far as adding to the list, some port management tools that don't have port in their names have been added in this thread, but I believe one is still missing. Some tool's home page explicitly states (tongue-in-cheek) that what sets it apart from other ports management tools is that it doesn't have 'port' in the name. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it is and STFW turned up nothing. (A good reason *to* have port in the name. :) ) Finally, I like portutils or something like that. Ports-mgmt is good - consistent, clear, etc., but I'd dodge a hyphen and a disemvowelment when a compound and general truncation will do. It's a stretch but 'mgmt' may not be immediately obvious to all, especially to the very new and to people whose first language isn't English. -J
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060516172028.GA12500>