On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:47:30PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:34:57PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:29:09AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:24 AM Diane Bruce <d...@db.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:13:58AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:37 AM Mateusz Piotrowski <0...@freebsd.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 10:58, Stefan Esser <s...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 02.04.19 um 07:42 schrieb Koichiro Iwao: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:41:51AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > > > > > > >> Create a real category vpn and move everything to it ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds better! Gentoo has net-vpn category. Just FYI, Gentoo > > > > > > > > also have > > > > > > > > net-dialup category. PPP/PPPoE/L2TP softwares are put under > > > > > > > > net-dialup > > > > > > > > but I feel that classification is too fine. At least creating > > > > > > > > vpn or > > > > > > > > net-vpn souds good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about a new "real" category vpn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if it should be vpn or net-vpn. I feel net-vpn is > > > > > > more suitable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and preserving the current categories > > > > > > > of the ports as their additional categories (assuming that they > > > > > > > are in net > > > > > > > vs. security for a reason). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea. > > > > > > > > > > Creating new categories is absolutely doable! However, we have a > > > > > pretty high bar for justifying it. There's no magic number, but our > > > > > (portmgr's) precedent is that the new category must, at the time of > > > > > creation, be as full as other categories like it. > > > > > > > > > > The most important thing in the new category proposal is a > > > > > comprehensive list of ports that will be moved to it. Put that into a > > > > > review or a PR and we can move forward. Fair warning though, if it's > > > > > only about a dozen ports, it most likely will not be approved. > > > > > > > > > > My approach here is that new categories should be virtual unless the > > > > > evidence for hard category is incontrovertible. > > > > > > > > It's far easier making a virtual category and easier to count ports. > > > > e.g. https://www.freshports.org/hamradio > > > > > > > > We have 101 hamradio related ports with more coming... > > > > korean has 43,portuguese has 15,russian has 42 although languages are a > > > > special case palm has 15 ports but whatever. ;) > > > > > > > > I'd be surprised if there weren't more vpn ports than 101 so why not > > > > go with a virtual ports category to start with? > > > > > > Hi Diane, > > > > > > That's a great approach to it! AFAIK we haven't explicitly used > > > virtual categories as a staging ground for hard categories, but that > > > seems like a really pragmatic approach; no matter the outcome, the > > > ports tree comes out ahead. > > > > > > # Adam > > > > Just to say, having a new "real" category will force people to rework their > > entry list for poudriere, reinstall things if they are using portmaster etc. > > For poudriere, it is transparent as it parses MOVED, and new physical > categories add entries in there. I think it will tell you something > about it too. > Same for portmaster yes, I just wanted to raise the fact that virtual categories are transparent addition, but almost useless, while physical one have an impact :)
Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature