fbsd wrote:
fbsd wrote:

*********  so working with in that same procedure the  maintainer
passes the packages to the audit people and they pass it on.
No problem with this at all.

Thus removing any kind of streamlining to speed up releases of new versions?

**** the port make method will still be there for all ports with
limited usage history, it will just not have a package for it
it has limited usage.

And this is the crux of the matter. Would phpmyadmin have a php5/mysql4 version? Or do the majority of users use php4 still? And are there more test boxes than there are production servers?

Is it fair to say the most commonly used ports are not the most commonly used packages? I would imagine that something like KDE would be a hugely popular package, on account of the sheer size of the beast, but that it wouldn't be the most popular port due to the number of people who don't run a GUI on their system.

There is also the fact that you could fairly easily abuse this system if you wanted your software to be included in the 'most commonly used' list, by just hammering the server.

******** There is no privacy issues. Passing cookies is normal and
done as matter of fact by most commercial websites and any website
uses php session control makes cookies by default.
This is a no-issue issue.

Every browser on the planet has the option to disable cookies (in the same way that email clients have the option of indenting quoted text - it's a standard required feature). This is because it is a privacy issue. Different people have different views on what privacy is or isn't, and that's nine tenths of the entire point: we don't get to decide what their privacy levels are, they do.

I can totally understand why you think this system would be better for you. I just hope you can understand why it wouldn't be better for everyone, nor even for the majority of people.

Now, Marc G. Fournier's dynamic personalised ports tree suggestion ... that's a *real* idea.

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to