fbsd wrote:
The fact is the maintainer is all ready being trusted to
manage the port so I see no reason NOT to trust him to
create the matching package.
Because they don't. The port maintainer is trusted to maintain the port
... and then a bunch of people are trusted to audit the ports before the
update is allowed in to the ports tree.
Or at least, that's how I thought it worked.
Even the need of the secure massive package built process is
now questionable.
The resources and time needed for performing the
secure massive package built must impact the release timeline of
new FreeBSD releases. Doing away with it may streamline many
other different internal release process.
New word: "secure".
The personalised dynamic ports tree is by far the best suggestion so
far. A 'most commonly used' ports tree is a daft idea, IMHO, and I fully
expect myself to be one of those people who uses quite a few ports that
would never make it on to that list. And it's not like I do a lot weird
stuff, either. I just think that with the number of fbsd users on this
planet, coupled with the number of ports in the tree ... well, there's
going to be an awful lot of minorities.
Also, I think the idea of having a central database to monitor which
ports are used has privacy issues, which will require every port to have
a privacy disclaimer and an opt-out option. So much for streamlining.
--
Spadge
"Intoccabile"
www.fromley.com
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
