Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 06:29:09 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> Cc: Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org, Koichiro Iwao <meta@freebsd.org>, Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: category for VPN softwares? Message-ID: <CAP7rwchxM4nXdNaQ-4nSGKSzk8yhSvpyLvq2zH_Uim9FTrfO3g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20190402122432.GB96855@night.db.net> References: <20190402032434.i5tvmzjrti6bz44s@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190402044151.GG72200@home.opsec.eu> <20190402054219.pbibp2jxqhtwqkru@icepick.vmeta.jp> <954df870-50bb-c7c0-f559-94dd92fce3a6@freebsd.org> <CAD9iB3eRj_Sm=oxEFNkqrM-%2BQVXXNza-kLXAXTNmg%2BQLOvp=ng@mail.gmail.com> <CAP7rwcidQCWi96BmLUdDpXFB1xi8m-mh6ei1CmB4ULSDT6-EmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190402122432.GB96855@night.db.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:24 AM Diane Bruce <db@db.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:13:58AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:37 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 10:58, Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Am 02.04.19 um 07:42 schrieb Koichiro Iwao: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:41:51AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > > > >> Create a real category vpn and move everything to it ? > > > > > > > > > > Sounds better! Gentoo has net-vpn category. Just FYI, Gentoo also have > > > > > net-dialup category. PPP/PPPoE/L2TP softwares are put under net-dialup > > > > > but I feel that classification is too fine. At least creating vpn or > > > > > net-vpn souds good. > > > > > > > > How about a new "real" category vpn > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if it should be vpn or net-vpn. I feel net-vpn is > > > more suitable. > > > > > > > > > > and preserving the current categories > > > > of the ports as their additional categories (assuming that they are in net > > > > vs. security for a reason). > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea. > > > > Creating new categories is absolutely doable! However, we have a > > pretty high bar for justifying it. There's no magic number, but our > > (portmgr's) precedent is that the new category must, at the time of > > creation, be as full as other categories like it. > > > > The most important thing in the new category proposal is a > > comprehensive list of ports that will be moved to it. Put that into a > > review or a PR and we can move forward. Fair warning though, if it's > > only about a dozen ports, it most likely will not be approved. > > > > My approach here is that new categories should be virtual unless the > > evidence for hard category is incontrovertible. > > It's far easier making a virtual category and easier to count ports. > e.g. https://www.freshports.org/hamradio > > We have 101 hamradio related ports with more coming... > korean has 43,portuguese has 15,russian has 42 although languages are a > special case palm has 15 ports but whatever. ;) > > I'd be surprised if there weren't more vpn ports than 101 so why not > go with a virtual ports category to start with? Hi Diane, That's a great approach to it! AFAIK we haven't explicitly used virtual categories as a staging ground for hard categories, but that seems like a really pragmatic approach; no matter the outcome, the ports tree comes out ahead. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwchxM4nXdNaQ-4nSGKSzk8yhSvpyLvq2zH_Uim9FTrfO3g>