From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 14 15:24:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B8416A414; Sun, 14 May 2006 15:24:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from spadge@fromley.net) Received: from queue01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (queue01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [81.103.221.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BF143D45; Sun, 14 May 2006 15:24:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from spadge@fromley.net) Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060514133534.VYOK29343.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:35:34 +0100 Received: from tobermory.home ([86.0.166.167]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060514133534.DNHH19763.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@tobermory.home>; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:35:34 +0100 Received: from [192.168.124.185] (jupiter.home [192.168.124.185]) by tobermory.home (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DB4A734E; Sun, 14 May 2006 14:35:31 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <44673223.8060206@fromley.net> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:35:31 +0100 From: Spadge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fbsd@a1poweruser.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:24:44 -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. > > 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. > New word: "secure". 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. 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. -- Spadge "Intoccabile" www.fromley.com