fbsd wrote:
Modify the master make code to post a count to a special
purpose FreeBSD website by passing it a cookie.
Now every time a any user runs the port make install that
special purpose FreeBSD website will be accessed counting
how many times that port is really executed. Then use
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:47:50 -0400
Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Hill writes:
IMHO, your gripes are misdirected - complain to your ISP about
the speed and reliability of your service. This should NOT take
two hours. It could also be a matter of using the wrong server
To fbsd:
Man,stop the trolling shit for good.
You have /usr/ports/misc/porteasy,use it and leave us alone.
You are just too much.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe,
At 20:28 13.05.2006, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of them?
The port collection is growing at a ever increasing rate per month.
The
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
Spadge wrote:
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
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 02:04:55PM +0300, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
I believe that one solution to the scalability problem of creating and
maintaining updated packages, would be to decentralize it more. Each
time I submit an update for one of the ports I maintain, I've
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
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
Adrian Pavone wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
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
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
maybe this is a bit off target, but it seems to me the ports tree is
not too large:
I've found stuff I've wanted that wasn't on the ports tree.
I think it's too small. Unless you are on a 56k, but then everything
ports related will be painful.
However a reoganization could be in order...
Just remember it has to be a
/better/ mousetrap.
wouldn't it be a peopletrap in this case, since it's for people?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail
I do use the ports mechanism on my FreeBSD systems exclusively due the
possibility of making the system components meshing and working in
unison instead of version and dll-hell. And now and then I find some
obscure port that fits the current needs - And again the ports system
makes the whole
The best indicator that the ports collection has become to large is
that it took me 2 hours to download the complete port-all collection
using A DSL internet connection. To compile the ports I use took
another 11 hours. This is the reason I went to using packages in the
first place.
Downloading
fbsd wrote:
The best indicator that the ports collection has become to large is
that it took me 2 hours to download the complete port-all collection
using A DSL internet connection. To compile the ports I use took
another 11 hours. This is the reason I went to using packages in the
first place.
On Mon, 15 May 2006, fbsd wrote:
The best indicator that the ports collection has become to large is
that it took me 2 hours to download the complete port-all collection
using A DSL internet connection.
Ah, the crux of the matter. I'd guess that was the driving force behind
this entire
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 14:28:49 -0400
From: fbsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Has the port collection become to large to handle.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I for one think the port/package collection has already grown to
large to handle in
Chris Hill writes:
IMHO, your gripes are misdirected - complain to your ISP about
the speed and reliability of your service. This should NOT take
two hours. It could also be a matter of using the wrong server
for your time and place.
A data point:
I just pulled a fresh
On Sat, 2006-May-13 22:37:01 -0500, Joseph Kerian wrote:
The resemblance is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Is there anything
preventing someone from making a portupgrade-like tool that uses only tmp, a
/ports dir on an ftp site and a bit of intelligence regarding dependency
resolution?
fbsd wrote:
So people them use the packages. But the problem with the
packages is they are not updated every time changes are
made to the port they were created from. Also packages that
have dependants like php4/php5 or mysql4/mysql5 are not being
updated to use the newer versions of those
At 20:28 13.05.2006, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of them?
The port collection is growing at a ever increasing rate per month.
The
Comments have been posted about how to determine in a fair way
which ports would be included in the most commonly used category?
The solution to that concern is pretty easy to do.
Modify the master make code to post a count to a special
purpose FreeBSD website by passing it a cookie.
Now every
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:49:51PM -0400, Frank Laszlo wrote:
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.
I for one
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
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:49:51PM -0400, Frank Laszlo wrote:
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
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
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
On Sunday 14 May 2006 06:08, fbsd wrote:
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
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?
*** again you are missing the
fbsd wrote:
*** again you are missing the point. Streaminglining would still
occurs
because only the most used ports would have packages not the whole
collection.
The work load would still be reduced.
In your opinion. Roughly what percentage would make it through to the
'most used
Spadge
Your comments are becoming more and more meaningless.
You are no longer contributing to the brainstorming of this thread.
Your attempt to engage a argument have failed.
All posts from you will go unanswered as you are now on my troll
kill list.
fbsd wrote:
*** again you are missing
On 15/05/06, fbsd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spadge
Your comments are becoming more and more meaningless.
You are no longer contributing to the brainstorming of this thread.
Your attempt to engage a argument have failed.
All posts from you will go unanswered as you are now on my troll
kill list.
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 02:04:55PM +0300, Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
I believe that one solution to the scalability problem of creating and
maintaining updated packages, would be to decentralize it more. Each
time I submit an update for one of the ports I maintain, I've already
build the
fbsd wrote:
Spadge
Your comments are becoming more and more meaningless.
You are no longer contributing to the brainstorming of this thread.
Your attempt to engage a argument have failed.
All posts from you will go unanswered as you are now on my troll
kill list.
*joy*
Agreeing with one
First of all, please don't cross post.
On Saturday 13 May 2006 10:28, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of them?
The port collection
fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of them?
snip
All feedback welcome.
1. Cvsup
2. Prozac
/me rolls eyes, again
Kevin
On Saturday 13 May 2006 10:28, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of them?
The port collection is growing at a ever increasing rate
As a port maintainer, it's quite enough work to keep things in sync
with one
ports tree without having to also worry about a second convenience
tree
that will only benefit a few users.
This post says nothing about a second convenience tree.
Talking about a (to use your term) convenience category
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:28:49PM -0400, fbsd wrote:
Users are consuming massive bandwidth to download and it
consumes a very large chunk of disk space. Saying nothing about
the wasted resources consumed to back it up repeatedly.
cvsup uses a relatively tiny amount of bandwidth, since
On Sat, 2006-May-13 21:39:46 +0100, Shaun Amott wrote:
If bandwidth really is a problem, then it is possible - but not
necessarily a good idea - to check out individual ports via CVS.
This is not supported. If you want to build ports from source,
you _must_ have a complete and consistent ports
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:28:49PM -0400, fbsd wrote:
I for one think the port/package collection has already grown to
large to handle in it's present state.
I suspect you are in the minority here.
Users are consuming massive bandwidth to download and it
consumes a very large chunk of disk
At 2:28 PM -0400 5/13/06, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of
them?
This is a good question. For all those people who want
to roll
Shaun Amott writes:
cvsup uses a relatively tiny amount of bandwidth, since only
changes are being sent. Personally, I have a local cvsup mirror
from which my other machines get their updates, so really, there
isn't any wastage.
Back when I had a 28.8 dialup connection, I
On Sat, 13 May 2006, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 2:28 PM -0400 5/13/06, fbsd wrote:
To all question list readers;
Now with 14576 ports in the collection where do you
draw the line that its too large to be downloading
the whole collection when you just use 10 or 20 of
them?
This is a good
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
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
On 5/13/06, Frank Laszlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
