From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 14:48:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C3F16A413 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:48:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF75B43D45 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:48:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from 209-6-102-190.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.102.190]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 14 May 2006 10:49:05 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,125,1146456000"; d="scan'208"; a="203613438:sNHT23173454" From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17511.16810.868922.107073@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:41:46 -0400 To: ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <44667EAF.10802@vonostingroup.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta26) "endive" XEmacs Lucid Cc: Subject: RE: Has the port collection become to large to handle. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:48:16 -0000 fbsd writes: > 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 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. That works fine ... right up until some goober has to rebuild four times because they didn't understand the options, or it conflicted with something else, or needed to be reinstalled after a system crash, etc.. And even if the technolgy works, I understand the position of the poster who doesn't want others knowing what is installed. At best it would be optional and on an "opt-in" basis; this means large numbers of people won't ... and there goes confidence in the rest of the data. Robert Huff