Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:37:16 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/www is too full Message-ID: <20041022143716.GS22274@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <20041022074529.GN10363@k7.mavetju> References: <20041022074529.GN10363@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (10.22.2004 @ 0345 PST): Edwin Groothuis said, in 52K: << > Ports/www is too full: 755 ports. > > I have kind of sorted (partly brute-force, partly eye-work) and > came up with the attached splits: > > www-servers 48 > www-servers-modules 115 > www-proxy 27 > > www-browsers 77 > > www-apps 26 > www-apps-cms 24 > www-apps-images 13 > www-apps-rss 9 > www-apps-wiki 21 > www-apps-zope 41 > > www-devel 11 > www-devel-perl 176 > www-devel-php 19 > www-devel-python 12 > www-devel-ruby 11 > > www-editors 29 > www-log 27 > www-ml 17 > www-spiders 25 > > www-misc 19 > > www 0 > > I'm missing 8 ports somewhere, but the idea is there. > Of course these categories aren't written in stone and I'm not going > to defend them regiously[sp], but it gives an idea what is there. > > Maybe even splitting pf www-servers*, www-clients and www-proxy > > I am willing to volunteer for this job, but I think it's more the > cvsmeisters which will curse than I am. > > Comments? Remarks? Support? Ideas? Hostile takeovers? >> end of "ports/www is too full" from Edwin Groothuis << Portmgr has been, for quite some time now, looking into adding an extra tier to the ports tree. Assuming that they haven't abandoned the idea, I'd say it's best to divide www into subcategories, instead of 20 main categories. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org adamw@vectors.cx || adamw@gnome.org http://www.vectors.cx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041022143716.GS22274>