From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 14:08:21 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 6321C16A406; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:08:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@a1poweruser.com) Received: from mta9.adelphia.net (mta9.adelphia.net [68.168.78.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBFB43D45; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:08:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fbsd@a1poweruser.com) Received: from barbish ([70.39.69.56]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060514140820.WBLF8718.mta9.adelphia.net@barbish>; Sun, 14 May 2006 10:08:20 -0400 From: "fbsd" To: "Spadge" Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:08:19 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <44673223.8060206@fromley.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" 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 Reply-To: fbsd@a1poweruser.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:08:21 -0000 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 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. > > Even the need of the secure massive package built process is > now questionable. > The resources and time needed for performing the > secure massive package built must impact the release timeline of > new FreeBSD releases. Doing away with it may streamline many > other different internal release process. > The personalised dynamic ports tree is by far the best suggestion so far. A 'most commonly used' ports tree is a daft idea, IMHO, and I fully expect myself to be one of those people who uses quite a few ports that would never make it on to that list. And it's not like I do a lot weird stuff, either. I just think that with the number of fbsd users on this planet, coupled with the number of ports in the tree ... well, there's going to be an awful lot of minorities. **** the port make method will still be there for all ports with limited usage history, it will just not have a package for it because it has limited usage. 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.