on 01/04/2011 08:57 Matthew D. Fuller said the following: > So, while removing OPTIONS alone may be good, we really need to > dismantle the system that caused the need for them in the first place > to avoid creating a greater mess. I think it coud be useful to turn > to Wikipedia for an example (and indeed, not just an example, but a > pre-built distribution system!). By simply eliminating any sort of > officially "blessed" ports tree (with all the complications and > liabilities that entails), encouraging users to set up Wikipedia pages > with recipes for building packages, and building a little > infrastructure (using sufficient tools already existing in the base > system; we can easily backport to 6.x and beyond) for fetching them > down and building on request, we can free up an enormous amount of > machine- and man-power, while making the result far more democratic. > > Really, the only significant challenge is rogue vandalism, but again, > Wikipedia itself has already developed systems for handling that. It > may take a little effort on our part to keep that up for our > particular needs, but surely far less than is currently required. And > as an additional bonus, by having it available on an easily-editable > wiki, we can save all the trouble of submitting and load of dealing > with PR's, and reduce our dependance on gnats too. It's pretty much > all upside, when you think about it.
I really love your proposal, especially when I recall deletionism. P.S. Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe? ;-) -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
