[clc-devel] Ports reorganisation?

Simone Rota sip at varlock.com
Mon Jan 5 23:33:56 UTC 2004


On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 22:37, Daniel Mueller wrote:
> Hi Simone,
Hi Daniel,

> I personally vote for removing 'unmaintained' completely. I'm a big fan
> of httpup repositories, because they're giving a wide range of people
> the chance to distribute their ports. Not every user has (shell-)
> access to a server for running cvsupd. Webspace is cheap & everywhere
> available.

> De-centralization would be okay - but we need a central index of all
> ports.

I guess for some aspect is a matter of personal taste.
The idea of a central index of httpup repos is good, in fact
I've been using a port containing httpup files for a while
(actually some consideration in my previous mail
comes from experiences using that port).

My point is that a central repository of 3rd party
(or unmaintained if you prefer) would:
- limit duplicates
- improve the quality of ports: in theory ports from the
  common repository are more exposed to the users, thus
  possible problems are easier to discover.

I won't mind if the various httpup repos are physically
on a central server or not (CLC providing
a central index as you suggest), so I think we
share some point.

Of course we should consider security implications,
but that's another story.

-- 
Simone Rota           WEB : http://www.varlock.com
Bergamo, Italy        MAIL: sip at varlock.com





More information about the crux-devel mailing list