hans at stare.cz
Thu Jun 13 10:16:00 PDT 2013
On Jun 11 07:53:22, pixilla at macports.org wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On May 28 21:36:58, jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On 28 May 2013, at 08:12 PM, Jean-François Caron <jfcaron at phas.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >>> While download statistics might not be a good system, I do concur that MacPorts very much would benefit from having a "discovery" mechanism by which users find out about useful ports. Searching is nice, but it's not discovery. Some kind of "top ports" list (however implemented) would be useful, imho.
> >> Personally, I fail to see how a 'top ports' list would tell me much. The ports i find essential are likely very different from others, so i don't see how using some sort of a list showing the most used ports would help me in any way in choosing new ones to install. Some ports likely have a low user base, but never less are critical to those that need them, such as more esoteric ports from the science section.
> > +1
> > let's say it turns out people download firefox a lot.
> > then what?
> Say we need/want to update a port that has many dependents; knowing the install base of the dependents could help us determine the support ramifications of different update approaches.
"determine the support ramifications
of different update approaches"?
What on Earth are you talking about?
You mean "e.g."
> moving apache2 install files to conform to porthier.
What does that mean, speicifically?
Is there a problem with the apache2 port?
Do apache2 install files need to be "moved"?
Why? Is there a ticket for this?
> Are 10 or 10,000 people likely to hit the MP mailing list
> asking what the bleep happened.
If there is a reason to change a port,
what does it matter how many users does the port have?
(Is this a "support ramification of an update approach"?)
More information about the macports-users