On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 19:39, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > My concern with this for some time is that there is little to no actual > benefit for the vast majority of these ports, however they do consume > resources. Admittedly not an overwhelming number of resources, but given the > fact that ports/package resources are stretched thin, and we'd like to > expand support for packages going forward, I think we need to carefully > evaluate these choices, especially given that we're losing maintainers. As a > quick overview I did a find for ports with xpi in the name and there are > well over 100. That doesn't include other ports with different naming > conventions. > > My suggestion is that we simply eliminate these ports altogether, but I > realize that's not likely to happen. :)
Around 6 months ago, a similar thing was proposed for a number of eclipse plugins - they can all be installed and updated via the builtin update manager and nothing is built for FreeBSD - they are just Java stuff that can be binary downloaded and run anywhere. People wanted them kept because in a corporate environment the admin can provide a consistent version to all users and update them using whatever methods they already use for other ports. -- Rob Farmer _______________________________________________ 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"
