Massive port bloat caused by the recommended en-freebsd-doc
Hello! I did a test install of 8.0-RELEASE, and during installation I let the recommended English docs remain chosen. After installation I installed portmaster, cvsuped and ran portmaster -bda. Five hours later (test PC is PIII 450) I'm in shock by the end result: Installation of devel/libtool22 (libtool-2.2.6b) Installation of converters/libiconv (libiconv-1.13.1_1) Installation of chinese/arphicttf (zh-arphicttf-2.11_2) Installation of lang/perl5.10 (perl-5.10.1) Installation of devel/gettext (gettext-0.17_1) Installation of devel/gmake (gmake-3.81_3) Installation of devel/pkg-config (pkg-config-0.23_1) Installation of print/freetype2 (freetype2-2.3.11) Installation of print/t1utils (t1utils-1.32) Installation of print/ttf2pt1 (ttf2pt1-3.4.4_2) Installation of chinese/ttf2pt1 (zh-ttf2pt1-3.4.0) Installation of graphics/png (png-1.2.43) Installation of print/libpaper (libpaper-1.1.23+nmu2) Installation of devel/t1lib (t1lib-5.1.2_1,1) Installation of graphics/jpeg (jpeg-8_1) Installation of graphics/gd (gd-2.0.35_3,1) Installation of print/amspsfnt (amspsfnt-1.0_5) Installation of print/cmpsfont (cmpsfont-1.0_6) Installation of print/tex-texmflocal (tex-texmflocal-1.9) Installation of print/teTeX-texmf (teTeX-texmf-3.0_6) Installation of www/libwww (libwww-5.4.0_4) Installation of print/gsfonts (gsfonts-8.11_5) Installation of print/ghostscript8-nox11 (ghostscript8-nox11-8.70_1) Installation of textproc/texi2html (texi2html-1.82,1) Installation of print/teTeX-base (teTeX-base-3.0_19) Installation of print/adobe-cmaps (adobe-cmaps-20051217_1) Installation of print/dvipdfmx (dvipdfmx-20090522_3) Installation of print/freetype (freetype-1.3.1_4) Installation of print/freetype-tools (freetype-tools-1.3.1_7) Installation of archivers/unzip (unzip-6.0) Installation of print/cm-super (cm-super-0.3.4_2) Installation of print/dvipsk-tetex (dvipsk-tetex-5.95a_4) Installation of print/teTeX (teTeX-3.0_3) Installation of print/latex-cjk (latex-cjk-4.8.2_3) Installation of chinese/docproj (zh-docproj-0.1.20060303_3) Installation of graphics/jbigkit (jbigkit-1.6) Installation of graphics/tiff (tiff-3.9.2_1) Installation of graphics/netpbm (netpbm-10.26.63_2) Installation of graphics/peps (peps-2.0_3) Installation of graphics/scr2png (scr2png-1.2_3) Installation of print/jadetex (jadetex-3.13_5) Installation of textproc/xmlcatmgr (xmlcatmgr-2.2) Installation of textproc/iso8879 (iso8879-1986_2) Installation of textproc/docbook-410 (docbook-4.1_4) Installation of textproc/docbook-xml (docbook-xml-4.2_1) Installation of textproc/docbook-420 (docbook-4.2) Installation of textproc/docbook-430 (docbook-4.3) Installation of textproc/docbook-440 (docbook-4.4_2) Installation of textproc/docbook-450 (docbook-4.5_2) Installation of textproc/xmlcharent (xmlcharent-0.3_2) Installation of textproc/docbook-500 (docbook-5.0_1) Installation of textproc/docbook-sk (docbook-sk-4.1.2_4) Installation of textproc/docbook-xml-430 (docbook-xml-4.3) Installation of textproc/docbook-xml-440 (docbook-xml-4.4_1) Installation of textproc/docbook-xml-450 (docbook-xml-4.5) Installation of textproc/docbook (docbook-1.4) Installation of textproc/docbook-xsl (docbook-xsl-1.75.2) Installation of textproc/dsssl-docbook-modular (dsssl-docbook-modular-1.79_1,1) Installation of textproc/fixrtf (fixrtf-0.1.20060303) Installation of textproc/html (html-4.01_2) Installation of textproc/html2text (html2text-1.3.2a) Installation of textproc/jade (jade-1.2.1_9) Installation of security/libgpg-error (libgpg-error-1.7) Installation of security/libgcrypt (libgcrypt-1.4.5) Installation of textproc/libxml2 (libxml2-2.7.6_2) Installation of textproc/libxslt (libxslt-1.1.26) Installation of textproc/linuxdoc (linuxdoc-1.1_1) Installation of textproc/expat2 (expat-2.0.1_1) Installation of textproc/p5-XML-Parser (p5-XML-Parser-2.36_1) Installation of textproc/scr2txt (scr2txt-1.2) Installation of textproc/xhtml (xhtml-1.0.20020801_4) Installation of www/links1 (links-0.98,1) Installation of www/tidy (tidy-2804_2) Installation of textproc/docproj-jadetex (docproj-jadetex-1.17_3) Upgrade of en-freebsd-doc-20090913 to en-freebsd-doc-20100213 Upgrade of portmaster-2.12 to portmaster-2.19 I added no options to the configs that were displayed, just removed some (e.g. X11 from ghostscript IIRC). I'm not so concerned with the time that passed, I'm just shocked by the number
Re: Massive port bloat caused by the recommended en-freebsd-doc
Peter Olsson p...@leissner.se wrote in 1269804756.2864.94.ca...@x61s: po I added no options to the configs that were displayed, just removed some po (e.g. X11 from ghostscript IIRC). I'm not so concerned with the time po that passed, I'm just shocked by the number of ports that got installed. po po I'm glad this was a test install, I won't install en-freebsd-doc again. po I suggest a big warning sign on the installation page which recommends po installing en-freebsd-doc. Anyway, no worries and keep up the very good po work you do with FreeBSD. This is because building the documentation set needs a bunch of toolchains. If you want this but not want to install the toolchains, install it by using the corresponding packages. -- Hiroki pgpadR3lFVLZM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Port Bloat
A couple months ago somebody posted a heads up on this list from the FreeBSD Ports Team about ports bloat and the massive influx of new software along with all the unmaintained ports. Has the port team ever thought about: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. B) In line with A, has anybody thought about just marking ALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] as scheduled for deletion on X date. Thousands of people are using these ports, you can't tell me if they were actually scheduled to be deleted from the tree at least one of the users wouldn't take over maintainership. -Peter Just some ideas (as I have ports I own that I no longer care about and would like to delete), -Peter ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Port Bloat
Peter Thoenen wrote: A couple months ago somebody posted a heads up on this list from the FreeBSD Ports Team about ports bloat and the massive influx of new software along with all the unmaintained ports. Has the port team ever thought about: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. You can do this right now: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-deprecated.html Committers will regularly sweep through expired ports and remove them. B) In line with A, has anybody thought about just marking ALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] as scheduled for deletion on X date. Thousands of people are using these ports, you can't tell me if they were actually scheduled to be deleted from the tree at least one of the users wouldn't take over maintainership. That's a fairly drastic action, and it would cause a massive amount of work. People know we have unmaintained ports - they can submit updates if they wish. Pruning out obsolete ports is useful too, but it requires motivation apart from an interest in just a single port. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Port Bloat
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:53:32PM -0700, Peter Thoenen wrote: B) In line with A, has anybody thought about just marking ALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] as scheduled for deletion on X date. It turns out that a few of them are key pieces of infrastructure. Perhaps we can generate a list of ports that we would really like to see adopted. It has also turned out, in the past, that one man's trash is another man's treasure as the old saying goes. When we first instituted the DEPRECATED/ EXPIRATION_DATE process, a lot of people did indeed adopt some ports in a flurry of activity, but there was a fair amount of fuss generated, too. Since then, several hundred stale/dead ports have indeed been pruned. Unfortunately we don't really have any good proxy for what ports are in use. The closest we have is FreshPorts subscriptions, which, the last we checked, showed that several thousand ports were not being tracked by anyone who subscribed. Unfortunately the sample space for FreshPorts is self-selecting so it can't be taken as authoritative. I advocate that people subscribe to FreshPorts and list the ports they use so that we can better judge this. One of my eventual goals for portsmon is to include date of last commit (as well as the fetch survey results) to try to generate another proxy for this. I don't have any other ideas that wouldn't just create a bunch of controversy, however. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Port Bloat
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:53:32 -0500, Peter Thoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple months ago somebody posted a heads up on this list from the FreeBSD Ports Team about ports bloat and the massive influx of new software along with all the unmaintained ports. Has the port team ever thought about: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. B) In line with A, has anybody thought about just marking ALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] as scheduled for deletion on X date. Thousands of people are using these ports, you can't tell me if they were actually scheduled to be deleted from the tree at least one of the users wouldn't take over maintainership. I disagree with all of this, because ports@ or unmaintain don't mean they are broke. They work fine, so no reason to delete them. When it is broke then can add scheduled for deletion on X date until someone steps in and fix it without take the maintain. Cheers, Mezz -Peter Just some ideas (as I have ports I own that I no longer care about and would like to delete), -Peter -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Port Bloat
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:53:32PM -0700, Peter Thoenen wrote: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. B) In line with A, has anybody thought about just marking ALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] as scheduled for deletion on X date. Thousands of people are using these ports, you can't tell me if they were actually scheduled to be deleted from the tree at least one of the users wouldn't take over maintainership. A port with no official maintainer is not necessarily unmaintained or uncared for. On the contrary, many ports assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] either require no work, or are taken care of collectively by everyone else. Ports that genuinely are not looked after are scheduled for deletion. -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson pgph8T38N28k8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Port Bloat
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:53:32PM -0700, Peter Thoenen wrote: A couple months ago somebody posted a heads up on this list from the FreeBSD Ports Team about ports bloat and the massive influx of new software along with all the unmaintained ports. Has the port team ever thought about: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. If you can make a good case for a port being useless (e.g. superceded by something else, only useful for obsolete purposes, etc), then you can follow the usual deprecation procedure. Otherwise, functioning but unmaintained ports should not be deleted en masse. Kris pgph5FwOPbb60.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Port Bloat
Peter Thoenen wrote: A) Making a delete port pr request. This way port maintainers INSTEAD of marking 'transfer ownership to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and hoping somebody takes it over one day could actually just delete ports they no longer wish to maintain. There should be some sort of WARN marking mechanism though (valid for X months (maybe 6)) that notifies any new user (or current via a portupgrade and EPOCH bumb) that this port is no longer maintained and scheduled for deletion unless one of them takes over maitainership by DATE. When I asked for one of my ports to be deleted, the request was honored extremely quickly and without trouble. I see no need for a special procedure for this. Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
