From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 16:04:50 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE06AA3881 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from fly.hiwaay.net (fly.hiwaay.net [216.180.54.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF76118E for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from kabini1.local (dynamic-216-186-244-25.knology.net [216.186.244.25] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fly.hiwaay.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/fly) with ESMTP id u19G4meJ019309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:04:49 -0600 Subject: Re: Removing documentation To: FreeBSD Ports ML References: <56B9D609.6030407@marino.st> <56B9EDC7.1010403@ohlste.in> <56B9F2D6.1090107@marino.st> <56BA01ED.7000504@ohlste.in> From: "William A. Mahaffey III" Message-ID: <56BA0E20.3080706@hiwaay.net> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:10:18 -0553.75 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 16:04:51 -0000 On 02/09/16 09:56, Royce Williams wrote: > IMO, this entire thread is masking a deeper symptom: FreeBSD > ports/packages management is fragmented. > > Each unofficial tool treats some symptoms well, and others poorly. > The fact that I have to use the phrase "ports/packages" is indicative > of a deep schizophrenia. > > Don't get me wrong -- I love the flexibility of choosing a package or > a port. And I'm all for having choices. But people should not be > choosing ways to manage core software management functions. > > Ideally, users could choose among different UIs/wrappers around the > core of a port/package management system. The things that each tool > has to do -- the database of current installs, dependency management, > etc. -- should not be reinvented by each tool. They should be shared > infrastructure that is part of the OS (like Debian's dpkg/apt system). > > A unified framework: > > * would make it easy for small-scale admins to install basic packages > with sane defaults > > * would resolve dependencies sanely > > * would allow software maintainers to capture the manual steps > currently stored in /usr/ports/UPDATING, and apply them in an > automated/guided fashion > > * would support building and distributing your own packages > > * would be part of the base OS and documented accordingly > > > Until this fragmentation is resolved , we'll be having this discussion > every few months, users will keep shooting themselves in the foot ... > and keep being incented to go elsewhere. > > We need to capture users' reasons for preferring specific frameworks, > and build a roadmap to how they could be unified. > > Royce > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" *Huzzah* !!!! I hereby 2nd that motion (from the cheap seats) :-) .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.