Steven Hartland wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the wrong solution.  I'm sure
you will love this *IFF* (that means "if and ONLY if")
all of *YOUR* ports are in that category of important
ports.  We have 15,000 ports because every single one
of those ports has some users who think that specific
port is important.  While I'm sure that some ports
will be willing to be in the "second tier" category,
I suspect you'll still have thousands of ports with
hundreds of thousands of users who will be personally
insulted if <someBastard> refused to include their
favorite port in the "important" category.  I doubt
you will find anyone who wants to volunteer for the
role of <someBastard>, because that is certainly the
only name which will be used to describe whoever
chooses which ports are in the special category.

How about implement a system where by ports register
their usage to a central server. This will give us
some very useful stats about port usage and after some
time this is examind and all ports whos usage falls
under a given measure ( to be decided again by stats )
said port is moved to a secondary port group.

Eww, sounds like a good definition of spyware, I could go without people knowing exactly what I install and when.

We could also use this info to prune ports not getting
any use at all.
Then when someone does need it, it wont be there, and will have to be re-ported.

In addition to that a method of syncing ports indivitually
might be an alternative way to go. That way instead of
syncing the many thousands of ports to compile up the
latest version of XXX you would only have to download
the port you wanted and any dependencies.

This is a neat idea that Marc brought up. Perhaps a dynamic ports tree is the answer. With an up to date INDEX, It probably wouldn't be hard to patch the ports system to download JUST the ports you need, and their dependencies. We would just have to decide on the method to do this. I suppose something like cvsup, or portsnap could be utilized to checkout single ports. But then again, after that, whats the point of even having sub directories for ports? Why not just have it download the framework, build the port, and delete everything. Now its starting to resemble debians apt-get. *shrug*

-Frank

_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to