Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:26:39 +0100 From: James O'Gorman <james@netinertia.co.uk> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. Message-ID: <44675A3F.4000503@netinertia.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGKEADHHAA.fbsd@a1poweruser.com> References: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGKEADHHAA.fbsd@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
fbsd wrote: > Spadge wrote: >> 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 the update is allowed in to the ports tree. >> >> Or at least, that's how I thought it worked. > > ********* 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. Question: How would you handle this for the ~4000 ports that are unmaintained? (MAINTAINER set to ports@FreeBSD.org) Or similarly, for when someone who isn't the maintainer of a port submits an update? This person is then no longer the "trusted maintainer", as you put it. [snip] >> Also, I think the idea of having a central database to monitor >> which ports are used has privacy issues, which will require every >> port to have a privacy disclaimer and an opt-out option. So much >> for streamlining. > > ******** There is no privacy issues. Passing cookies is normal and > done as matter of fact by most commercial websites and any website > that uses php session control makes cookies by default. This is a > no-issue issue. Perhaps a better suggestion for this would be a similar approach to what I believe the Debian project did - the Debian Popularity Contest. They created a package which, when installed setup a cronjob to anonymously email the developers periodically statistics about your installed packages. This then makes it "opt-in", rather than mandatory. However, as someone said earlier, unless a significant number of people were to use this the statistics collected would be next to useless. But in any case, are the misc/instant-workstation and misc/instant-server ports not sufficient for this sort of thing? They are simply meta-ports which "depend" on ports common to their respective tasks. James
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44675A3F.4000503>