category for VPN softwares?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:29:09AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:24 AM Diane Bruce <db at 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 <0mp at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 10:58, Stefan Esser <se at 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.
No problem at all for pkg(8) users as it would be transparent

As for the virtual category it will work, but has the very limited effect of
only allowing things like freshports to list things withing that category,
almost nothing else do use the virtual categories.

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20190402/41a1c74a/attachment.sig>