From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Feb 13 19:27:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.133]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F44D4810 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by picnic.mat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA40505; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:26:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? In-Reply-To: <00021321052504.06543@nomad.dataplex.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > The machine is a pentium 120; maybe if things get worse sometime, the > > hardware could be upgraded. Contrary to popular belief, there are still a > > large number of ctm users. > > > > I just didn't want folks to think that I would allow ctm to drift into > > trouble. I would *not* do that. > I didn't want to imply that you would not attempt to provide service in spite > of the fact that the load is constantly increasing and the hackers are ostrichs. > > Truthfully, I'm not sure what the minimum acceptable level of service would be. > With so many users using "pull on demand", those left might be satisfied with > once/day service, etc. Who knows? Well, the load on cvsup is pretty minimal, and there's only one download every 8 hours, it serves the ctm cvs tree, and the other ctm trails are all users of the local cvs tree. I think, honestly, that while you are right in essence, Richard, you're proposing something that is too extreme for most of the porters to accept. The compromise worked out over ports, which is flattening out the overweight directory structure, is going in the direction you're advocating, just not so far as you would like. I'm quite happy with something that simulatneously reduces the load and keeps the current flavor of the ports methods. This kind of thing, if *really* wanted, is *very amenable to demonstration. One could quite simply write a translator script to change the ports, one by one, into the system you propose, and also offer the users a method to access it. One could prove then that there was indeed customer demand, by the most inarguable route (by really demonstating it). If it were proven, folks then would be truly unable to offer an effective rebuttal. Unfortunately, none of us wants this idea, it's sort of removing nice details for programmers to meet a need we don't all believe in. You could prove us all wrong ... but you'd have to do that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message