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.
Is php4 out of date? no its still been maintained and is more suitable for many people, likewise with mysql 4.1. Openssl 0.9.7 all are older branches but not out of date. The ports system is very clever in how it is so adaptive eg. Ruby needs openssl and if you have 0.9.7 it sets that as the dependency rather then 0.9.8. No hacking of makefiles needed. Chris ************** The point being made by the OP is the packages are not being kept up to date and the usage of packages & ports don't work together because of the overall size of the collection. How does what you posted address the packages? ******* _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"