Steven Hartland wrote:

Chris wrote:

On 15/05/06, fbsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keep the ports tree how it is, as others have said the size is small
on modern hard drives and bandwidth trivial, once the initial ports
tree is in place keeping it up to date needs very little bandwidth and
its only distfiles that tend to be large, but you only download
distfiles for ports you install so this is a very good system.  If at
least one person uses a port it is justified and I very much like that
most tiny apps I search for in the ports tree do indeed exist.  How
would you define commonly used ports? we would end up with a
favouritism system in place and many arguments about which ports would
be included in the commonly used group, you also forget that many
ports that may look meaningless from where you sit are necessary as
dependants to other ports.

There would be not arguments as stats dont lie. Please read the entire
thread there are some good ideas in there which would speed up day to day
use of ports for everyone. Where you get the idea that ports is quick to
maintain is beyond me it takes a good 30mins to sync up if your a few
months out of date now a days. 30mins is not much if you have 1 machine
but add it all up for a large number of machines and its a significant
amount of time which we all could better spend doing other things instead
of waiting for a cvsup to complete.

This is why there are options in place that would allow you to download
the cvsup to one of you computers, likely a server of some sort, and
your other computers all retrieve the CVSup from this local server,
significantly speeding up the retrieval time and decreasing the load on
the primary servers, a win for everyone. If you have computers of
varying architectures or in seperated geographical locations this would
not work as worded, but from your wording it sounded like you had a
local LAN of computers.

Ohh, and for your informations, statistics do lie, that is the point of
statistical analysis, which I spent 1 1/2 years of my life studying
before changing into my current Software Engineering/Computer Security

And, the arguements would arise from the "common" ports/packages
directory, a suggestion of fbsd's I believe, whereby common ports that
would not be built often primarily due to their size, and so wouldn't
show up in statistics (such as Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, and a number of
others), would be placed into a common directory of the ports/packages
tree, and would be exempt from these statistics. The arguements would
arise over what should be placed into this "common" directory.

And what about the case of a port that would be built many times over
its lifetime, mainly due to program version changes? The first one that
springs to mind would be Firefox. Firefox has had a number of version
changes in the same space of time that Exim, a very commonly used mail
server application, has been updated, and assuming an even distribution
of mail servers and desktop users with firefox, firefox would appear to
be 10-20 times more active over it's lifetime.

It is also common for people with a desktop computer to format their HDD
every 3 months or so, and every time this occured, the desktop PC ports
(Xorg, Firefox, KDE/XFCE/GNOME,, etc.) would get a
rebuild/redownload, again throwing the stastics out of whack.

Just my $0.02.


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to